Balancing landlord's bonafide need with tenant's right to reasonable time for eviction under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner is a tenant and is facing the judgment of eviction/release, as it has been rendered concurrently by both the Courts below in the proceedings which were held under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "Act No.13 of 1972") being judgment dated 19.01.2019, which has been rendered by the court of Additional District Judge 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No.07 of 2017 "Raj Kumar Grover Vs. Sachin Mehrotra".

2. As a consequence thereto, the appeal which was preferred by the petitioner/tenant under Section 22 of the Act No.13 of 1972, stood rejected. Resulting into an affirmation of the judgment dated 24.08.2017, which was rendered by the learned Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Rent Control Case No.02 of 2016 "Sachin Mehrotra Vs. Raj Kumar Grover". As a consequence to the judgments, which are under challenged, the tenement shop which admittedly was under the tenancy of the petitioner, was sought to be vacated in order to met the personal requirements of the landlord/respondent, who wanted to open his own medical shop for dealing, with the wholesale business, in which he has been engaged for quite some time, and for which he needed the disputed accommodation in question. The respondent/landlord, also took a ground that his need happens to be a more exigent, as compared to that of the tenant/petitioner, for the reason being that at the time of the release itself, the landlord/respondent himself, was forced to carry out his business from the other tenented accommodation, despite the fact that he was having his own shop under his ownership, which was let out to the petitioner, for which the release application was filed.

3. There had been various rival contentions, which had been raised before the learned trial court, but ultimately both the Courts below after appreciating the respective case, have concurrently allowed the release application holding thereof that the landlord/respondent who has got a shop under his ownership, cannot be compelled to continue, to conduct his business from the tenant's accommodation, and since he wants to conduct his business from his own shop the bonafide need obviously had been rightly determined in his favour, by both the courts below.

4. Be that as it may, when the writ petition was instituted, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its interim order dated 06.05.2019, while enhancing the rent to be remitted to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month had granted an interim protection to the petitioner, whereby, the execution of the impugned orders under challenged were kept in abeyance.

5. Thereafter on various occasions, the matter was taken up and ultimately this Court passed an order on 22.02.2021, whereby, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to complete his instructions from the petitioner/tenant, with regards to the time period which he wants to avail for the purpose of vacating the tenement shop in question.

6. When the proceedings of the writ petition revived today, before arguing on merits of the matter the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement at the bar that he may be granted three years' time to vacate the disputed premises in question, considering the age of the litigation, particularly, when the release application itself was instituted in the year 2016 and that too when the petition has been concurrently decided against the petitioner holding all the facets under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No.13 of 1972, in favour of the landlord/respondents.

7. I am of the view that the said period of 3 years to vacate the shop, as prayed for three years, is on the very higher side because it would be rather barging into and over the rights of the landlord/respondent in utilizing its own accommodation, for conducting his business from his shop.

8. Apart from it, the time period prayed for was also st