KASHMIRI LAL Vs. RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. GARG, J. It is tenant's writ peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of release dated 28th October, 1996 which has been passed in P. A. Case No. 12 of 1995 and affirmed in appeal No. 33 of 1996 which has been filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act which has been dismissed on 28-8-2000. The dispute relates to premises No. 127- C, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar.

(2.) HEARD Sri R. P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ashish Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri P. K. Jain learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondents 1 and 2. The release applica tion was moved by the landlord-respon dents 1 and 2 for occupation of the said premises for their personal need. The Prescribed Authority has taken the view that the need of the landlord was bonafide and that the balance of hardship tilted in favour of the landlord. Sri Ashish Kumar learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the question of bonafide need as well as hardship is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdic tion. In support of its submission Sri Singh placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Kamla Sarin v. Shyam Lal and others, 1984 (2) All RC 344, in the case of Munni Lal and another v. Prescribed Authority and another, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 29 : 1981 ARC 470 (SC), case of Nathu Lal v. Radhey, AIR 1974 SC 1696, in the case of Babhutmal Raichand v. Laxmibai, AIR 1975 SC 1296, in the case of Smt. Labhkumar Bhagwani Shaha v. Janardan Mahadeo Kalan, AIR 1983 SC 535, in the case of Ram Rakesh Pal and another v. 1st Additional District Judge and others, 1976 UPRCC 376, in the case of Jagan Prasad v. District Judge and another, 1976 UPRCC 342, in the case of Laxmi Narain v. Ilnd Additional District Judge and another, 1977 UPRCC 230, in the case of Smt. Nirmal Tandon v. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 1996 (2) ARC 409, and in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanjuagarwal, 1997 (1) ARC627.

(3.) AFTER taking into consideration the respective submissions of the parties Counsel and to balance their rights, I feel that it would be proper if the implementa tion of the order is deferred till 30th Sep tember, 2001. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall vacate the disputed released accommodation positively by 30th September, 2001 and handover the vacant possession to the landlord respon dents 1 and 2. This concession has been allowed on further condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 75 as damages commencing from 1st January, 2001 upto 30th September, 2001. This amount shall be deposited by the petitioner in advance with the Prescribed Authority concerned on 28-2-2001. In the event of failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount aforesaid by the said date, or vacate the premises after deposit of the amount by 30th September, 2001 the order of release shall become executable all at once according to law. Needless to say that after the amount is deposited the landlord shall be permitted to withdraw the same. Petition dismissed. .