NIRANJAN KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. LAXMAN SINGH BIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After arguing the case on merit for sometime and after hearing both the counsels on merit of the case i.e. the argument of the tenant/petitioner as well as landlord/respondent, a plea was made by the petitioner's counsel, with consent of his client who is present in the Court, stating that he is willing to vacate the premises in question, if a reasonable time is given to him to vacate the same.

(2.) Before one deals with this aspect it is necessary to mention that the matter before this Court arises out from proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act (from hereinafter referred to as ' Act No. 13 of 1972) in which a release application was filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and the Prescribed Authority, after hearing both the sides, finally ordered for releasing the premises in question holding that a bona fide need and a comparative hardship goes in favour of the landlord/respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972 before the appellate court, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) At this juncture it is also necessary to state that inter alia the petitioner's counsel has also raised a legal point which is that Act No. 13 of 1972, in fact, is not applicable in the present case as the property in question falls in cantonment area. The argument of the petitioner was that Act No. 13 of 1972 is only applicable to urban buildings in urban area. In view of sub-section 3(e) of Section 1 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to Cantonments in Uttar Pradesh, which reads as under:-