J. C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD petitioners counsel Sri S. H. Siddiqui and Sri M. K. Gupta counsel appearing for the contesting res pendents-land lords. ( 2 ) THIS is tenants writ petition. The dispute relates to a shop situate at Shri Ganj near City Post office, Aligarh. In which the petitioner is undtsputedly a tenant for the last more than thirty years and according to him he is running a Tailoring business therein. Landlord Manohar Lal jain filed application for the release of the said shop under Section 16 (!) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 thereinafter referred to as the act) on the ground that the same is bona fide required for himself and his grandson Sudhanshu Jain. It was stated therein that Sudhanshu Jain has become major and after completing his education was sitting idle and unemployed and he was to be set up in business so that he could be married and lead his own life independently. It was also stated that the landlord has no other vacant shop to settle his son therein. The said son wanted to start the business of readymade garments in the disputed shop. The landlord further alleged that the tenant is practically carrying no business in the shop in question and keeps the same closed for most of the time. Therefore, even on comparison of hardship, the landlord would suffer greater than of the tenant. The release application was contested by the tenant-petitioner on a number of grounds. The petitioner came with the case that the landlords son was not sitting idle as he is already engaged in business in a big air-conditioned ready-made garments shop along with the other family members and the said business is a joint family business, therefore, there was no need of Sudhanshu Jain and the main object of the landlord was to any how evict the petitioner so that the shop could be sold at a handsome price. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that undisputedly Manohar Lal Jain died during the pendency of proceedings and therefore, with his death his alleged need extinguished, but this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below inasmuch as in the release application, the landlord came with the case that the shop in question was required jointly for himself and his grand-son Sudhanshu Jain and. therefore, on account of the death of Manohar lal Jain, the alleged need has lessened. A perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court shows that the Court was fully aware and conscious of the fact of the death of Manohar Lal Jain and the Court proceeded only to consider the need of the grand-son Sudhanshu Jain. On examination of evidence and material on record, the need of Sudhanshu Jain has been found to be bona fide. It has been held by the Courts below that Sudhanshu Jain was not engaged in any business. Simply because Manohar Lal Jain had died, it could not be said that the need of sudhanshu Jain was reduced by half. The case of Manohar Lal Jain was that the shop in question was required for doing business of ready-made garments both by himself and his grand-son. The mere fact that he himself expired would not lead to an Inference that the need of Sudhanshu Jain for whole of the shop was not liable to consideration. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner than argued that it was the specific case of the petitioner that the said Sudhanshu Jain was engaged in the business along with his other family members in the air-conditioned readymade shop and evidence was led to the effect that Sudhanshu Jain used to sit in the said shop and was even selling articles like Sweater etc. and even issued cash memos, therefore, the finding of the Courts below that Sudhanshu was not engaged in any business is perverse. The appellate court has examined this matter thoroughly and has rightly held that the mere fact that on some occasions. and even issued cash memos, therefore, the finding of the Courts below that Sudhanshu was not engaged in any business is perverse. The appellate court has examined this matter thoroughly and has rightly held that the mere fact that on some occasions. Sudhanshu Jain also sat in the said shop and issued one cash memo would not be a conclusive proof that he was also engaged in the business, especially when the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the landlord fully established that sudhanshu Jain had no interest or right in the partnership business which was being carried on in the said shop. The expression engaged in business normally means that the person concerned is actively involved in that business and also gets his share of profits out of the same. Any service rendered voluntarily or on some payment basis cannot lead to the conclusion that the person is engaged in the business in real sense of the term. It is well-established law that every son/member of the landlords family is entitled to earn his own livelihood by doing his own independent business if he is not engaged elsewhere or if he is engaged so to augment his income. The question which requires consideration in every case is whether the claim made by the landlord is bona fide and genuine. In the present case both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the need of the landlord for setting up Sudhanshu Jain in business in the disputed shop was bona fide and genuine. ( 5 ) THE Courts below have also examined the defence case that during the pendency of proceedings another shop was got released but the same was not given to Sudhanshu Jain for starting his alleged business, and it has been found that the said shop was released for another son Parveen Jain for setting up his chamber/office therein. Other properties which are alleged to have been acquired were residential one and the need of landlords son could not be fulfilled from them. ( 6 ) ON the question of comparison of hardship also both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding in favour of the landlord-res pendents. Other properties which are alleged to have been acquired were residential one and the need of landlords son could not be fulfilled from them. ( 6 ) ON the question of comparison of hardship also both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding in favour of the landlord-res pendents. It has been found as a fact by both the courts below that though the petitioner is a tenant in the disputed shop for the last more than thirty years but he is practically doing no business therein and keeps the shop closed for most of the time. Neither before Courts below nor before this Court, the petitioner could place on record any documentary evidence to rebut the landlords aforesaid assertion that he was doing practically no business in the shop in question. The Courts below have rightly taken into consideration the fact that all throughout the pendency of proceedings, no sincere and earnest effort was made by the tenant to obtain any other accommodation either on rent or otherwise. On the mere ground that the tenant has been in occupation since long, the need of the landlord which otherwise has been found to be bona fide and pressing cannot be sacrificed. In every case where an order of eviction is made, tenant is bound to suffer some inconvenience but only on that account the landlord cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to have his own property for his personal use. The Prescribed Authority in the present case has already ordered payment of two years rent to the tenant-petitioner by way of compensation. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, this writ petition which is concluded by concurrent findings of fact is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Stay order stands vacated. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that some reasonable time of about six months be given to the petitioner so that during this period he may find out some other alternative accommodation and vacate the premises in question. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents states that the respondents will have no objection for this proposal provided the petitioner is prepared to file an undertaking on affidavit. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents states that the respondents will have no objection for this proposal provided the petitioner is prepared to file an undertaking on affidavit. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the entire facts and circumstances, the petitioner is allowed six months time from today to vacate the shop in question and hand over its vacant possession to the contesting landlords within the said period, subject to his filing an undertaking on affidavit before the prescribed Authority within three weeks from today to the effect that he shall handover vacant possession to the landlords-respondents within the aforesaid period of six months and shall not induct any third person therein. For a period of three weeks from today the execution of impugned order of release shall remain suspended. In case the required undertaking is filed within the aforesaid period of three weeks, the petitioners eviction shall remain stayed for a period of six months from today on the condition that the undertaking filed is respected. In the event of non-filing of the required undertaking within the aforesaid period, the land lords-respondents shall be at liberty to get the order of release enforced forthwith. .