Smt. Zohara Begum vs Abul Hasan

Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 24.10.2016 and 05.03.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 57 of 2008 and the Ist Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 20 of 2001 respectively.

By the order dated 05.03.2008, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the release application of the landlord for satisfying the residential need of his family which comprises of 18 members. By the order dated 24.10.2016, appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

A perusal of the record would go to show that a finding has been returned that the landlord''s family comprising of 18 members has four rooms, one Kothari, Verandah, Angan, Latrine and open roof in their possession and, therefore, they had requirement for additional accommodation. Accordingly, the accommodation in dispute comprising one room, one Kothari, one Verandah, Angan and Latrine was found bona fide needed to satisfy landlord''s need. The court below has also found that hardship was greater for the landlord in case of rejection of the release application than for the tenant in case of the release application being allowed. The appellate court affirmed the finding returned by the Prescribed Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has tried to dispute the need of the landlord but has failed to demonstrate as to how the finding returned by the courts below are vitiated.

In view of the above, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the orders impugned. Particularly when concurrent findings of fact have been returned after appreciating the evidence on record.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for sometime to vacate the premises.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of by observing that no good ground is made out to interfere with orders impugned. However, considering the facts of this case, it is provided that pursuant to the orders impugned, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute up to 31.05.2017 provided the petitioner submits an undertaking in the Court of Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar that he shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord respondent by 01st June, 2017. The said undertaking must be furnished by 15.03.2017. In case, the undertaking is not submitted by 15.03.2017, the release order shall become executable forthwith. In case, the undertaking is submitted by 15.03.2017 and the petitioner fails to vacate the premises by 01st June, 2017 then it shall not only be open to the landlord respondent to execute the release order passed against the petitioner but it shall also be open to the landlord-respondents to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner for violation of the undertaking.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.