JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-tenant has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short 'the Act') dated 4th January, 2006, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant against the order dated 24th November, 2003, by which the prescribed authority has allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlord, under Section 21 of the Act, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-12 and 7 respectively, to the writ petition.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, in favour of the landlord, as he bona fide requires the shop in dispute for the purposes of the chamber of landlord who is practising lawyer. It was also asserted by the landlord that in fact the tenant is not carrying on any business, and that the tenant has sublet to some third person, who is carrying on fair price shop business in the shop in dispute. It is further asserted by the landlord that the landlord, who is practising advocate, has recently been appointed as 'Notary Public' and requires the aforesaid shop after release for his chamber, wherein he can use the aforesaid room for consultation with his clients, as at present the landlord do not have any independent consultation chamber and that the landlord is using the room In his possession, which in fact a bed-room by putting a curtain and utilising half portion of the bed-room as consultation chamber. That due to the paucity of space and appointment of the landlord as 'Notary Public', he requires the additional accommodation and for that purposes the shop In dispute Is required for the bona fide need and the same may be released In his favour. As far as the comparative hardship is concerned, the assertion of the landlord In the release application is that in fact the tenant is not carrying on any business in the shop In dispute and he is unnecessarily occupying the shop because the tenant demands premium for vacating the same.
3. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid release application before the prescribed authority on the ground that the property is owned by Smt. Kalawati, who used to issue the rent receipts also and therefore in the absence of Smt. Kalawati as a party, the application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' Is not maintainable. It is further asserted by the tenant that after the death of Ghanshyam Gupta, all his heirs inherited the property and so far as the family partition which is set up by the respondent-landlord, since is not a registered document, cannot be read in evidence. On the question of bona fide need, the tenant disputed the claim of the landlord and it is submitted on behalf of the tenant that the need of the landlord is neither bona fide, nor genuine and there is absolutely no explanation by the landlord in the present application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' as to why this application has been filed after about eight years of the family partition. The prescribed authority after hearing both the parties and after perusal of the evidence on record have recorded finding that the need of the landlord Is bona fide and that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord, it therefore vide its order dated 24th November, 2003, allowed the application filed by the respondent-landlord and directed release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 24th November, 2003, passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority, the same arguments were advanced as were advanced before the prescribed authority. So far as the maintainability of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' is concerned, the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have relied upon a decision in 1995 (1) ARC 146. wherein the application filed by one of the joint owner, without impleading the joint owners has been held to be maintainable and therefore the argument advanced on behalf of the tenant that application under Section 21(1)(a) of the 'the Act' filed by the landlord without impleading Smt. Kalawati as a party is rejected and it is held that the application of the landlord is maintainable. On the question of bona fide need, the appellate authority confirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and held that the landlord requires the shop in dispute for the purposes of consultation chamber for himself who is a practising advocate. On the question of requirement of room for practising advocate, the appellate authority as well as the prescribed authority have relied upon the decisions in 2001 (1) ARC 581 and 2003 (2) ARC 792 ; wherein this Court has held that the requirement for chamber for the advocate has been held to be bona fide requirement. On the question of comparative hardship, the courts below have relied upon decision of this Court in, Jogendra Singh Bajaj v. IVth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, 2005 (1) ARC 394, wherein this Court relying upon the earlier decision of this Court has held that "in case the tenant have made no effort to find oat a suitable alternative accommodation after the filing of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of 'the Act' against him, then the need will not be considered for the purposes of comparative hardship." However, In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellate authority have recorded finding that alternative accommodation suggested by the tenant that the so called Pooja room can be utilised by the landlord for the purposes of consultation chamber is not correct, thus the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant.
5. Before this Court, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-tenant tried to assail the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority on the question of bona fide requirement as well as the comparative hardship. I have gone through the orders impugned in the present writ petition passed by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority, but nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority in any way suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash , wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court will not appreciate evidence like an appellate court by re-appreciating or re-evaluating the evidence while exercising supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Lastly it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenant submitted that since the tenant is carrying on business in the shop in dispute, therefore, he may be granted reasonable time to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of Justice, I direct that the petitioners-tenant shall not be evicted from the shop in dispute pursuant to the impugned orders till 31st August, 2006, provided :
(1) petitioners-tenant furnishes an undertaking before the prescribed authority within three months from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlord on or before 31st August, 2006 ;
(2) petitioners-tenant pay to the landlord or deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages, if not already paid to the landlord or deposited before the prescribed authority, at the rate of rent till date within three months from today and continues to pay or deposit the same by first week of every succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till 31st August, 2006, whichever is earlier. The landlord will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited by the petitioners-tenant.
(3) in the event of default of any of the conditions referred to above, it will be open to the respondent-landlord to get the order executed.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.