AZEEM Vs. IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.1.1995, passed by the Prescribed Authority, releasing the shop in question in favour of the landlord -respondents under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order dated 8.9.1995, passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order. Respondents 3 to 9 are landlords of the shop in question. They filed application under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Act on the allegation that the shop in question is required to establish Abu Bux son of Smt. Zareena Khatoon, respondent No. 3. Her husband was a teacher in Islamiya Inter College, Hamirpur. He died and there is no one to maintain the family. Her second son is unemployed and he will establish himself in business of general merchandise shop. It was further stated that the shop in question is in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and new construction. The tenant -petitioner has two other shops in which he has hotel and in the second shop he is selling betel etc. In case he is evicted, he would not suffer any hardship. The application was contested by the petitioner. It was denied that the disputed accommodation was in a dilapidated condition. Abu Bux was already employed and does not require the shop in. question. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application. It was found that Abu Bux son of respondent No. 3 was unemployed and the need of the landlord respondents was bonafide. It was further found that the accommodation in question was in dilapidated condition. The application under Section 21(1)(a) was allowed. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 8.9.1995.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the landlord -respondents had purchased the property and they had given a notice on 11.11.1992 but the notice was given under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. It was defective and could not be said to be a notice as contemplated under the first proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. A copy of the notice has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. A perusal of the notice indicates that the landlord had clearly indicated that the shop in question is required for the personal need of the landlord. The mere mention of Section 21(1)(b) as title of the notice is not conclusive. The content of the notice is clear that the petitioner was informed that the landlord requires the shop in question for his personal need.

(3.) IN the result the writ petition is dismissed. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the disputed accommodation. As he is already running business in the disputed premises, he will require time to shift and settle in some other business. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case the petitioner is granted eight months time from today to vacate the accommodation provided he gives a written undertaking before respondent No. 2 within three weeks from today that he would vacate the disputed premises within the time granted by this Court and hand -over its peaceful possession to the landlord - -respondents.