Shashi Kant Gupta, J.@mdashThis writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Saharanpur upholding the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the Small Causes Court, Court No. 19, Saharanpur in SCC Suit No. 8 of 2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for arrears of rent and ejectmet has been decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;
A SCC Suit No. 42 of 2010 was filed by the respondentlandlord for arrears of rent and ejectment. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court by its order dated 5.3.2010. The petitioner, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, filed a revision before the District Judge which was transferred to Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Saharanpur. The revisional Court by judgment and order dated 14.12.2010 dismissed the revision. Hence the present writ petition.
3. From perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Court below, it is evident that both the courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact upholding that the disputed premises does not come within the ambit of rent control act. It was also held that the petitioner also committed default in the payment of rent. It is not disputed that the notice under Section 106 of the Act was served upon the petitioner and the tenancy was terminated. The Court below has recorded a finding that the petitioner despite the service of notice did not pay the arrears of rent.? The Court below after evaluating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the disputed premises was, for the first time, assessed by the Nagar Maha Palika in the year 1993. After discussing the provision 2 (2) of the Rent Control Act, 1972 the Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in the matter. Thus, when the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 itself is not applicable, the petitioner cannot get benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. The courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons. The findings recorded are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material.
4. I do not finding any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. In the last, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for some reasonable time so as to enable the petitioner to vacate the premises in question.
6. The said prayer has not been objected by Sri Pankaj Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the respondents.
7. As urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, six months'' time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioner gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlord opposite party without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent payable upto the date of delivery of the possession? to the landlord.
8. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord opposite party will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioners in accordance with law.
