KHURSHID JAHAN Vs. RAMJANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Islam Ahmad, Advocate representing the respondent. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact of bona fide need of the landlord as also comparative hardship between the parties holding that the landlord had the bona fide need and further if the premises is not vacated the landlord would suffer greater hardship. It has also been recorded that the case had been pending for the last 13 years and during which period the tenant-petitioner ought to have made alternative arrangement. It is also recorded that the tenant-petitioner had a premises in his ownership which he could have got vacated and shifted therein instead of insisting to continue in the building of the landlord. Both the findings recorded are based upon consideration of the material evidence on record and are pure finding of facts not warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for one year's time to vacate the premises. The counsel for the respondent has objection to grant of one year time but has submitted that any lesser time which the Court may find reasonable may be allowed provided the petitioner submits the usual undertaking before the court below.

(2.) Considering the submissions advanced six months time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises provided the tenant-petitioner files before concerned Prescribed Authority, on or before 8th February, 2012, an application along with his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter: