OLSON JOHNSON Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.11.2000 whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 24.11.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed by the respondent No. 1. It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act as the building in question was needed by him for his personal need and occupation. The necessary facts to justify his claim for release of the building were stated in detail in the release application and plea of comparative hardship, in the event the application was dismissed, was also taken. The application filed by the respondent No. 2 was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases, The Prescribed Authority after going through the material on record recorded findings on the question of bona fide genuine nature of need of respondent No. 2 as well as on the question of comparative hardship in his favour and against the petitioner. The findings recorded by the authorities below are findings of fact, which are based on the relevant evidence on record. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings and the orders passed by the authorities below. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any illegality in the impugned order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

(2.) LASTLY , learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the buildings in question. In my opinion, it will meet the ends of justice if I grant four months' time to the petitioner to vacate the building in question subject to the condition he furnishes undertaking within 15 days from today before the Prescribed Authority that he will vacate the building in question and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent No. 2 immediately after expiry of the aforesaid time or before and that he will pay the rent of the accommodation in question for the period he remains in occupation.

(3.) IN case the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid order, this order shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to execute the order of release in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, this petition stands finally disposed of.