JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed along with certified copy of the order is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that supplementary counter affidavit is not required. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment & order dated 18.01.2010, passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.) Ballia West in P.A. Case No. 04 of 2004 : Kusum Rani & others vs. Kamla Prasad, as well as judgment and order dated 12.08.2010, passed by the District Judge, Ballia in Rent Control Appeal No. 01 of 2010: Kamla Prasad Vs. Kusum Rani & others. The aforesaid two judgments, have been appended as Annexures 3 & 5 to this writ petition, respectively. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the shop in dispute pursuant to the impugned judgment and orders dated 18.1.2010 and 12.8.2010. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent IInd set, Dr. Mohd. Obaidullah, who is said to be actual owner of the premises in question, gave a shop in dispute with small room at the monthly rent of Rs.25/- in the year 1967, wherein the petitioner has been doing tailoring work in the name and style of 'Calcutta Tailors' since then; that Dr. Mohd. Obaidullah despite having no right or title over the disputed property, fraudulently entered into an agreement with respondents, Ist set to sell the property in question in their favour; that on coming to know these facts, respondent no. 5, IIIrd set, Amir Hasan, filed Suit No. 504 of 1991 which was subsequently numbered as Suit No. 10 of 1996 ( Amir Hasan Vs. Dr. Mohd. Obaidullah), claiming himself to be real owner. He prayed in the suit for declaring him as owner of the property in dispute. The said suit is still pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Ballia West. However, Dr. Mohd. Obaidullah, respondent IInd set, during pendency of the aforesaid suit, transferred the property in question in favour of respondent, Ist set by means of a registered sale-deed dated 24.11.1997, hence P.A. Case No. 04 of 2004 (Kusum Rani & others vs. Kamla Prasad) was filed by the respondents Ist set, for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. 4. 4. The aforesaid suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement on the ground that the title of respondents IIIrd set, Dr. Mohd. Obaidullah, in the property in question itself being disputed and pending consideration before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ballia, the P.A. Case filed by Kusum Rani & others for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question was not maintainable. By the impugned judgment and order dated 18.1.2010, Civil Judge (J.D.) Ballia allowed the application (4 Ga-2) of respondents, Ist set, directing eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Rent Control Appeal No. 01 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioner in the court of the District Judge, Ballia on the ground that the court below erred in holding respondents Ist set to be the owner/landlord of the property in question, which could be decided only in the regular suit and hence, the order was incorrect and is liable to be set aside. 5. However, the appellate court i.e. District Judge, Ballia vide its order dated 12.08.2010 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner confirming judgment of the trial court. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have exercised its jurisdiction in proceeding to decide the title of respondents Ist set holding them to be the owner/landlord of the property in dispute, which could only be decided in a regular suit. He has further contended that it is evident from the judgment dated 28.1.2010 that relationship of the tenant and the landlord is found between the parties and that the tenant has only right to use the building tenanted to him, but he cannot become its landlord. He has further urged that after considering the bonafide need and comparative hardship, the court directed that need of the landlord was more than the tenant, as such, tenant shall handover the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord who will pay him two years' rent as compensation to the tenant as provided under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 7. 7. The finding recorded by the trial court is thus: ^^foi{khx.k ,d rjQ rks ;g dFku dj jgk gS fd lk;yku dk LokfeRo mDr Hkou esa ugha gS u gh mldh dfBukbZ foi{kh ls T;knk gSA foi{kh lkbfdy dh nqdku djrk gS vkSj ,slh dksbZ [;kfr Hkh foi{kh dh ugha gS ftlls mldks vR;f/kd dfBukbz gksA foi{kh }kjk dksbZ iz;kl lk{; ls bl vk'k; dk izLrqr ugha fd;k fd mlds }kjk vius fy, vU;= LFkkuksa ij nqdku ryk'k dh x;h gS] bl dkj.k Hkh ;g Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS fd og 1967 ls fdjk;snkj jgk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd lk;yku ds iq= csjkstxkj gSa rFkk mlus f'k{kk dk izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k gS ,oa dksbZ Hkh O;fDr viuh vko';drk ds vuqlkj edku ;k nqdku [kjhnrk gS tcfd iwoZ esa edkunkj dks vko';drk ugha Fkh rks mlds }kjk foi{khx.k dks fdjk;s ij j[kk x;k ijUrq orZeku esa mlds iq= ds fy, lEcfU/kr nqdku dh vko';drk gSA fdjk;snkj ds ikl lEcfU/kr Hkou ds mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj gksrk gS og mldk Lokeh ugha gksrkA lk;y dks mDr nqdku dh mlds Lokeh gksus ds dkj.k mi;ksx o miHkksx djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh dh vis{kk lk;yku dks vR;f/kd dfBukbZ dgha vf/kd izrhr gksrh gSA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd lk;yku ,oa foi{kh dk edkunkj ,oa fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA f}rh; edkunkj dks nqdku dh okLrfod ,oa ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS vkSj dfFkr nqdku ds [kkyh gksus ls izfri{kh dh dfBukbZ vis{kkd`r de gS tcfd nqdku [kkyh gksus ls lk;yku dks gksus okyh dfBukbZ vR;f/kd gSA fu"d"kZr% vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj gSaA vkns'k izkFkZuk i= 4x2 Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA izfri{kh dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og uD'kk okn i= ds vad 2]3]5]6 ftldh pkSgn~nh lwph ^v* esa of.kZr gS] vihy dh vof/k ds i'pkr fu;ekuqlkj [kkyh dj vkosnd dks iznRr dj ns] vU;Fkk lk;yku U;k;ky; dh lgk;rk ls dfFkr fookfnr ndku ij dCtk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs vkSj izkFkhZ vkosnd dks Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os izfri{kh dks 31@& :i;k izfr ekg dh nj ls nks o"kZ dk fdjk;k n[ky ds le; izfrdj ds :i esa vnk djsA [kpkZ mHk; i{k viuk viuk ogu djsaA 18 tuojh 2010 g0 vLi"V ¼v:.k dqekj i`rh;½ flfoy tt ¼tw0fM0½ if'peh@ fu;r izkf/kdkjh] cfy;kA** 8. It is also averred that in the judgment dated 12.8.2010 given in Rent Control Appeal No. 01 of 2010, appended as Annexure-S.A.2, the appellate court has confirmed the finding recorded by the trial court holding that there is no question of deciding title in P.A. Case and that the Prescribed Authority has not decided the said title rather has held that there was relationship between the tenant and the landlord. The appellate court further held that pendency of regular suit would not have any effect on the present appeal. 9. After considering the judgment of the trial court as well as affidavit filed by the parties and evidence on record, the appellate court found that son of the landlord suffers much hardship than the tenant and held that the landlord has right to use his property according to the need and circumstances and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the trial court cannot be said to be unreasonable. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed a judgment of this Court passed in C.M. Writ Petition No. 380 of 2011: Kashi Nath Vs. Kusum Rani and others, who was also running a shop in the same house in which the present petitioner is also running his business. The said writ petition has been dismissed on 17.1.2011 considering bonafide need and comparative hardship of the landlord than the tenant as the same question is also involved in the present writ petition. 11. The judgmen dated 17.1.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 380 of 2011 is as under: "Petitioner before this Court was inducted as tenant according to his own case in the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- by one Dr. Mohd. Obaidullah. According to the petitioner he was given to understand that Mohd. Obaidullah was the agent of true owner of the premises but subsequently it transpired that Mohd. Obaidullah was only an employee of true owner. Reference is made to Original Suit No. 10 of 1996 filed by one Amir Hasan (who according to the petitioner is true owner of the premises) against Mohd. Obaidullah. It is then stated that Mohd. Obaidullah has sold the property in favour of Smt. Kusum Rani on 24.11.1997 and said Kusum Rani has started claiming herself to be landlord. Since rent was not accepted by Mohd. Obaidullah, the petitioner deposited the same under Section 30 before the competent court. Obaidullah. It is then stated that Mohd. Obaidullah has sold the property in favour of Smt. Kusum Rani on 24.11.1997 and said Kusum Rani has started claiming herself to be landlord. Since rent was not accepted by Mohd. Obaidullah, the petitioner deposited the same under Section 30 before the competent court. The purchaser of the property from Mohd. Obaidullah i. e. Smt. Kusum Rani made an application for release of the premises under Section 21 for establishing her two sons namely Rajesh Agrawal and Brijesh Kumar Goyal. This application has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority after recording a finding that the sons of the purchaser Kusum Rani were unemployed and that the need of the premises in question was bona fide. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 18.01.2010 was subjected to challenge by way of Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2010, which has also been dismissed after affirming the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. Hence this writ petition. The only issue raised for challenging the order so passed before this Court is that since the title suit between Amir Hasan and Mohd. Obaidullah has not been adjudicated finally, the purchaser of the property from Mohd. Obaidullah namely Kusum Rani cannot be said to be the landlord of the premises and therefore her application was not maintainable. The contention so raised on behalf of the petitioner does not appeal to the Court. Premises was granted on rent by Mohd. Obaidullah and payment of rent was made to the Mohd. Obaidullah from the date the petitioner was so inducted as tenant is not in dispute. Therefore, Mohd. Obaidullah was admittedly the landlord of the premises. This Mohd. Obaidullah has admittedly transferred the property in favour of Kusum Rani and therefore she steps into the shoes of Mohd. Obaidullah as the landlord. Her application has rightly been held to be maintainable and therefore rightly proceeded with by the authorities below. Decision of the title suit filed by Amir Hasan has no bearing in the facts of the case. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. At this stage counsel for the petitioner made a request that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises. In the opinion of the Court nine months time would be just and equitable in the facts of the case. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. At this stage counsel for the petitioner made a request that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises. In the opinion of the Court nine months time would be just and equitable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises till 31st October, 2011 provided (a) he files an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within one month from today categorically stating that he shall handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 31st October, 2011 and (b) he deposits entire rent in advance, which may be due for use of the premises up to 31st October, 2011, through a bank draft drawn in favour of the landlord within the same time. The draft so deposited shall be handed over to the landlord for encashment. In case of default petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order." 12. In the circumstances, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case that the landlord suffers more comparative hardship and have bonafide need than the tenant as held by both the courts below and also in view of the fact that writ petition no. 380 of 2011 filed by similarly situated petitioner (tenant) like present petitioner in the same building wherein the same argument raised as in the present petition, has been dismissed by this Court, I am also of of the view that the present writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. The petitioner is permitted to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question within nine months from today provided (a) he files an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within one month from today stating that he shall handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord within the aforesaid period of nine months and (b) he deposits entire arrears of rent, if any, and rent in advance, which may be due for use of the premises up to nine months henceforth, through a bank draft drawn in favour of the landlord within the same time. 14. The draft so deposited shall be handed over to the landlord for encashment. In case of default petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.