VIRENDRA SINGH PAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Varma, J. I have heard Sri J. N. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N. K. Shukla, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 3.

(2.) THE instant writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-7-2006 passed by the opposite party No. 1, whereby the Revision filed by the petitioner, i. e. the tenant against the judgment and order dated 21-6-2006 passed by the opposite party No,2, allowing the application of the landlord, i. e. opposite party" No. 3, under Section 16 (1) (b) 6f U. P. Act XIII of 1972, has been dismissed. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that after making submission on merits before the opposite party No. 1, the learned Counsel for the petitioner succumbed on the question of maintainability of Revision and requested the Court below that as the tenant had been running the shop as a photographer so sufficient time be allowed to him to vacate the property. in dispute. THE request made by the petitioner was acceded to and opposite party No. 1 granted two months time to vacate the premises. An undertaking with regard to the same was also required to be given by the petitioner within the time stipulated in the said order.

(3.) HOWEVER, looking to the fact that the petitioner is doing business in the shop in question since 1968 and he has no other alternative accommodation at the moment to shift his business, he is allowed six months time from today to vacate the shop in question. The learned Counsel for the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the Court below within a period of one week from today that he will hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to its landlord, i. e. opposite party No. 3, by 5-2-2007.