BARFI DEVI Vs. HARISH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenant for quashing the order passed by the authorities below allowing the release application filed by the respondents and the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. After filing of the writ petition certain grounds were not taken. Therefore, an amendment application has been filed which has been allowed. One of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is that notice under Section 20 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was necessary as the respondent-landlord is a subsequent purchaser. Further, the trial court as well as Appellate Authority has not recorded a finding that whether on releasing the part of the accommodation which is a shop, need of the landlord will be fulfilled or not. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I find no merit in the writ petition. The finding recorded by both the authorities are findings of fact and needs no consideration. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. At the last, Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some reasonable time be granted to the petitioners to vacate the said premises. In such circumstances, it is provided that if petitioners submit an undertaking with an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority that they will vacate the said premises peacefully and handover the peaceful possession to the landlord-respondent within a period of one year from today, the Prescribed Authority will pass appropriate order granting the time of one year to the petitioners to remain in the said accommodation. It is also provided that rent if any, is due, that will be paid by the petitioners within one month and they will go on paying the same which was being paid by the petitioners till the vacation of the shop in dispute. The petitioners will not induct any third person or will not create right of any third person in the shop in question. No order as to costs. .