Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 397 of 2019 Petitioner :- Wahid Sunar Respondent :- Mohammad Answar Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Chaudhary Subhash Kumar
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petition is directed against the order dated 13.7.2018 passed by Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 1/2011 and the judgment and order dated 27.10.2018 passed by District Judge, Jalaun at Orai dismissing Rent Appeal No. 1/2018.
The proceedings arises out of a release application filed by respondent-landlord against the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of shop in the tenancy of the petitioner setting up bona fide need of his son. It was alleged that his son would start a tailoring business in the disputed shop. The release application was contested by the petitioner contending that the need of the son of the respondent is not bona fide. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 13.7.2018 allowed the release application after returning a categorical finding that the need of the son of the respondent for engaging him in tailoring business is genuine and bona fide and that the landlord would suffer greater hardship in case, the release application is not allowed. The Appellate Authority by impugned order dated 27.10.2018 has endorsed the findings returned by the Prescribed Authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that he is not in a position to assail concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below regarding bona fide need of the son of the respondent-landlord and that he would suffer greater hardship as compared to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has been running a jewellery shop, therefore, sufficient time may be granted to him to vacate the shop to enable him to make alternative arrangement. He also agreed to pay rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month during this period.
Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, after some reluctance, agreed to the petitioner being granted a year's time to vacate the shop subject to furnishing of an usual undertaking.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in possession of the disputed shop for a period of one year, subject to his furnishing an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within three weeks from today that he would vacate the disputed shop on or before the expiry of one year and also deposits advance rent for the year at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month within four weeks from today, failing which the protection given hereby would stand vacated automatically and it shall be open to the respondent-landlord to execute the release order.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 22.1.2019 AM/-