Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3621 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 413 of 2025 Petitioner :- Narottam Kumar Respondent :- Khaliq Mukhtar Khan Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvajeet Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Harshit Singh,Kamal Kant Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.10.2016 passed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 releasing the premises in question in favour of the landlord as well as appellate order dated 13.11.2024 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the tenant of the premises wherein he is running a commercial shop. The respondent, landlord, moved an application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking to evict the petitioner on the ground of personal need. The need set up by the landlord was that he is a heart patient and was advised to live on the ground floor of the premises and at present, he is staying on the first floor. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court framed as many as three points of determination: with regard to the first point regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant, the same was decided in favour of the landlord; with regard to the bonafide need, the prescribed authority recorded that the landlord who was then aged about 58 years had undergone coronary bypass on 07.05.2013 and recorded that the landlord was facing inconvenience in staying on the first floor on account of the said ailment; with regard to the comparative hardship, the same was decided in favour of the landlord and order of eviction was passed. The appeal preferred was also dismissed. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in support of the contention that the petitioner was suffering on account of heart disease, a certificate of the doctor was filed which did not recommend that the petitioner should stay on the ground floor, in fact, the certificate recorded that the petitioner was hale and hearty, fit and fine. 5. In the light of the said, it is argued that the evidence to support the pleading that the premises on the ground floor was required was not existing. He further argues that the petitioner is running a shop in the premises in question for the last 43 years and has earned a reasonable goodwill. The petitioner is aged about 75 years and would face undue hardship if he is asked to vacate the premises at this stage, as such, the petition may be entertained and both the impugned orders may be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the finding by arguing that admittedly the petitioner had undergone coronary bypass surgery, thus, was finding inconvenient to climb on the first floor and as such, the proceedings were filed for personal need. He further argues that the personal need as pleaded was established before the prescribed authority and the appellate authority, and the said findings are findings of fact. He further argues that during the entire tenure of the proceedings since the year 2014, the petitioner did not pay any effort to find any alternative premises, as such, the present petition deserves to the dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the need set up by the landlord was personal need for residing of the ground floor on account of his coronary bypass surgery that he had undergone; even if the doctor did not give a certificate that he was required to stay on the ground floor, the inconvenience set up was found to be genuine in view of the finding that the petitioner had undergone coronary bypass surgery. The findings with regard to the need set up are findings of fact which cannot be interfered under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, during the entire tenure of the proceedings, the petitioner has not made any effort to find any alternative premises which also goes against the petitioner. 8. In view thereof, I do not see any reason to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the premises to which counsel for the respondent has no objection. 10. In view thereof, the petitioner is directed to vacate the shop on or before 30.09.2025 subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking within a period of three weeks from today before the prescribed authority that he shall handover the vacant and physical possession of the property in question to the landlord and to no one else on or before 30.09.2025. 11. The arrears of rent, if any, shall also be deposited within a period of one month from today. 12. In case of failure of filing the undertaking, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench