Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is tenants' writ petition arising out release proceedings initiated by landlords respondents against them on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act ( U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) in the form of P.A. Case No.7 of 2007, Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Shivram and others. Property in dispute is a shop bearing No.76/97 situate at Kotwali Road, Mathura. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge ( J.D.), Mathura through order dated 16.08.2010 allowed the release application and directed the tenant to vacate the shop in dispute within one month. Against the said order, tenants petitioners filed P.A. Appeal No.13 of 2010. A.D.J., Court No.6, Mathura dismissed the appeal on 26.09.2012, hence this writ petition.

Both the courts below found the need of the landlords to be genuine. Question of hardship was also decided in favour of the landlords.

In this writ petition efforts were made by me for exchange of accommodation. Orders dated 18.12.2012 and 20.12.2012 ( on the writ petition) are quoted below:

"18.12.2012:- After hearing learned counsel for the tenants petitioners and Shri P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent who has appeared through caveat the court is tentatively of the opinion that it is a fit case for exchange of accommodations. The main argument of learned counsel for tenant-petitioners is that in para-21 of the writ petition some shops were pointed out to be available to the landlord in vacant state which aspect was not discussed by the Prescribed authority and lower appellate court only mentioned that the said accommodation was used in the past as a godown for a firm of the landlord which had closed.

Learned counsel for the landlord respondent after consulting his client categorically states that he is ready to give one such accommodation ( godown or shop) to the tenant in exchange of the shop in dispute. Smt. Ram Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners in principle agrees with it however she wants time to consult her client.

Put up for further orders on 20.12.2012. On 20.12.2012 learned counsel for both the parties shall file a rough sketch map of the accommodations pointed out in para-21 of the written statement.

20.12.2012:- Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit of petitioner No.1.

Learned counsel for both the parties categorically state that their clients are ready for exchange of the accommodations as indicated in the order dated 18.12.2012. As Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioners, sketch map of the shop in dispute and other adjoining properties of landlords respondents has been filed. It bears No.14-ka/2. Learned counsel for petitioners states that it is part of the record of the prescribed authority and the number was allotted there. A rough sketch map has filed by learned counsel for the landlords respondents just now. A portion is shown by letters 'store/godown Firm Motilal'. The area of the four shops in the map No.14-ka/2 and the area of the portion shown by letters 'store/godown Firm Motilal' in the map filed by learned counsel for landlords respondents appears to be almost same. The dispute as to whether there are four shops or not is extremely trivial and wholly irrelevant for the purposes of exchange. Learned counsel for landlords respondents has agreed to give a shop of as much area as of the shop in dispute which is stated to be 240 square feet ( 20 feet by 12 feet) according to the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for respondents states that on any side either towards north or towards south in the portion shown by letters 'store/godown Firm Motilal', tenants petitioners may choose a shop of about 240 square feet area.

Accordingly, it is directed that the Presiding Officer of the court of prescribed authority either by himself or if it is not feasible, then t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document