IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1132 of 2009 (M/S) Satyendra Kapoor S/o Late Hem Raj Kapoor R/o Sahukara Line Haldwani District Nainital. …Petitioner Versus Charanjeet Singh S/o Late Jaswant Singh Prop. J.C. Jewelers Mukhaini Kaladhungi Road Haldwani, Nainital. ….Respondent. Shri J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 29.05.2009, passed by Additional District Judge, Haldwani, in Rent Control Appeal No. 12 of 2007, whereby said court has affirmed the order dated 29.09.2007, passed by Prescribed Authority, in Rent Control Case No. 2 of 2000, allowing the application of the landlord for release of the shop in question. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and other papers on record. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent is landlord of shop No. 11-185, situated in Sahukara Line, Haldwani, in which the petitioner is tenant of shop for last more than 50 years. The respondent/landlord, moved an application in the year 2000, under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for release of the shop on the ground that respondent/landlord, need the same for settling his son Gurjeet Singh in business. The application was contested by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority. Said authority after taking evidence of the parties, and hearing them, allowed the application, vide order dated 29.09.2007. Aggrieved by said order, the tenant (present petitioner) filed an appeal before the appellate court. Said court after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.05.2009, and affirmed the order relating to release of shop in question in favour of the landlord. Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need of the landlord is not genuine. It is further contended that comparative hardship, on release of the shop in question, is more to the tenant. Both these points, which are required to be seen, have already been discussed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate court, and 3 they have given concurrent finding of fact after discussing the evidence on record that the landlord has a bonafide need of the shop to settle his son in the business. Both the authorities have also held that the comparative hardship is more to the landlord as compared to the tenant. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction or in the supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, cannot go into the question of correctness of the findings of fact, recorded by the authorities below, that too when the same are concurrent. Had there been a perverse finding of fact, it could have been said that this Court should interfere in the matter. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the finding of fact, recorded by the courts below, nor there appears any illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. For the reasons, as discussed above, this petition is liable to be dismissed. However, since the premises are commercial in nature, in the peculiar facts of the case, the tenant requires to be given sufficient time to vacate the premises in question. Also, the amount of compensation is required to be paid, as provided in second proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of U.P. 4 Act 13 of 1972. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with the following directions:- 1. The respondent/landlord shall pay and amount equal to two years rent to the tenant/petitioner, or deposit in his favour before the Prescribed Authority, within a period of three months from today. 2. The petitioner (tenant) is allowed time to vacate the shop in question by 30.06.2010, (as undertaken by him before the Court), failing which the landlord/respondent shall be at liberty to get the premises vacated, as directed by the authorities below. (Stay application No. 6090 of 2009, also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:10.08.2009 Sweta