A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition, under Article 226, Constitution of India, arises out of proceedings initiated by shyam Shankar Srivastava and his two sons by filing release application under Section 21 (1) (a)of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called the act) before prescribed authority appointed under the Act. The landlord claimed that he required premises No. S/6/12. Mohalla Miana Mohal, Orderly Bazar. Varanasi, wherein Smt. Vidya Sinha (petitioner) was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 35 per month. Release was also sought for other portion in the said premises in the tenancy of Smt. Madhuri singh. After parties led evidence, the prescribed authority urde judgment and order dated 10th may, 1995 (Annexure-5 to the petition) allowed release application granting two months to the tenant (petitioner) to vacate said accommodation and hand over vacant possession to the landlord. During the pendency of the proceedings before prescribed authority, Smt. Madhuri singh, aforementioned had given possession to the landlord. ( 2 ) SMT. Vidya Sinha, thereafter filed Rent Control Appeal No. 157 of 1995, under Section 22 of the Act. The said appeal has also been dismissed by the appellate authority (respondent No. 1)vide judgment and order dated 28th May, 1999 (Annexure-6 to the petition ). The Lower appellate Court affirmed the Judgment of the prescribed authority, who had, after perusing the evidence and material on record on the question of bona fide need, found that the requirement of the Landlord was genuine and bona fide. In view of the fact that AJay Shankar Srivastava, son of the Landlord, was married and unemployed and that other son Manoj Shanker Srivastava, who had passed M. Sc. in First Division was entitled to carry on proposed business according to his liking and he could not be compelled to remain in service as Class III employees, which was not according to the status of his family, i. e. , his father was Principal of Degree College and grand-father was a renowned Advocate of District Ghazipur. The prescribed authority has also noted that the release application remained pending for 12 years and during which the situation was bound to change. The prescribed authority has also found that tenant had made no effort whatsoever for obtaining alternative accommodation. The prescribed authority has also noted that the release application remained pending for 12 years and during which the situation was bound to change. The prescribed authority has also found that tenant had made no effort whatsoever for obtaining alternative accommodation. In view of it, prescribed authority held hardship which was going to be caused to the Landlord by rejecting release application will be more than that which will be suffered by the tenant in case of release being allowed. The Lower appellate Court considered the evidence and material on record Independently and concurred with the findings recorded by prescribed authority. The tenant has, thus, come up before this court by filing present petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Sr. T. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rohit Agrawal, holding brief of Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for Caveator-Respondent No. 3. The present writ petition is being heard at admission stage and finally decided. ( 4 ) NO notice required to be given to respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 since the interest of these respondents is fully represented by Ajay Shankar Srivastava, respondent No. 3, and also that no order adverse to them is being passed. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any specific ground in the petition to indicate that findings of fact, recorded by two Courts below are vitiated in any manner warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, constitution of India. After perusing the documents filed along with writ petition, this Court finds that no ground has been made out to challenge the finding recorded on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, then raised a legal question to the effect alleging that residential accommodation could not be released for non-residential purpose, in view of section 21 (1), Proviso III (ii) of the Act, which reads : "provided also that no application under clause (a) shall be entertained-- (ii) In the case of any residential building, for occupation for business purposes;" ( 7 ) THIS aspect has been considered by the prescribed authority (Annexure-5, particular page 54 of writ paper book ). The prescribed authority has placed reliance upon the decision in Smt. Ram kali v. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1985 (2) ARC 385. The prescribed authority has placed reliance upon the decision in Smt. Ram kali v. IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1985 (2) ARC 385. paras 1 and 2. The Lower appellate Court has dealt with this aspect of the matter in its judgment (Annexure-6, particular page 77 of the writ paper book ). The aforementioned provisions under the Act, came up for consideration before this Court and it Is held that release application in respect of residential building shall be entertained and the bar contained aforementioned will not come into play if the landlord seeks release both for residential as well as business purposes. It is a matter of common knowledge that a landlord may use his residential premises for residential, purpose, which may not be purely residential in nature and/or the alleged use may be such, which may be carried on along with residential use. For example, an Advocate may require an accommodation for residential purpose, but still he may use a portion of it for a professional use. Similarly, there may be cases that landlord may generally desire to carry on some activity, which may conveniently be carried in a portion of a room, e. g. , plastic moulding machine for manufacturing small items like refills and plastic cases of clinical thermometer. The above examples are not exhaustive. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has referred to the decision in Chhedi Lal and another v. Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others. 1985 AWC 967. In para 8. learned single judge in the case of Chhedi Lal (supra) has taken similar view, which was taken by this Court in the case of Ram Kali (supra ). The ratio laid down therein cannot be said to be applicable to the facts of present case. The said decision can be relied for limited purpose ; i. e. , there is no complete ban, as such for residential premises being used for both residential and non-residential purposes. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, the view taken in the case of Ram Kali (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of present petition. I find no reason to take different view. Perusal of the release application to the present case shows that landlord required accommodation for residential purpose and certain portion of it for non-residential purposes. ( 9 ) IN my opinion, the view taken in the case of Ram Kali (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of present petition. I find no reason to take different view. Perusal of the release application to the present case shows that landlord required accommodation for residential purpose and certain portion of it for non-residential purposes. The prohibition In III Proviso clause (ii) of Section 21 (1) of the Act will not apply to the case where application has been filed primarily for residential purpose and only a portion is required by landlord for non-residential purpose. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect is devoid of merit. ( 11 ) NO other point has either been raised for pressed at this stage. ( 12 ) THE case was heard finally on 27th July, 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage sought time in order to enable to contact his client for seeking instructions. The case is being taken up on 28th July, 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that on instruction from the petitioner, he is prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall vacate the accommodation in question and deliver vacant possession to the landlord-respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 subject to following conditions provided ; that petitioner is not dispossessed from the accommodation for the period upto 31st January, 2000 and he Is allowed to retain possession of the accommodation in her tenancy in premises No. S/6/12, mohalla Miana Mohal, Orderly Bazar, Varanasi, which is subject-matter of P. A. Case No. 15 of 1983. Shyam Shanker Srivastava and others, since deceased through legal representative v. Vidya Sinha and another, subject to the compliance of the conditions given hereunder : 1. The tenant-petitioner/s file/s before concerned prescribed authority, on or before 31st August, 1999. an application along with his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter : 2. Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for six months, i. e. , upto 31st January, 2000. Tenant-petitioner, his representative /assignee, etc. The tenant-petitioner/s file/s before concerned prescribed authority, on or before 31st August, 1999. an application along with his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter : 2. Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for six months, i. e. , upto 31st January, 2000. Tenant-petitioner, his representative /assignee, etc. , claiming through him or otherwise, if any, shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 31st January, 2000 to the landlord or landlords nominee/ representative (if any. appointed and intimated by the landlord) by giving prior advance notice and notifying the to landlord by Registered A. D. post (on his last known address or as may be disclosed in advance by the landlord in writing before the concerned prescribed authority), time and date on which Landlord is to take possession from the tenant. 3. Petitioners shall on or before 31st -August. 1999 deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. up to date. i. e. , entire arrears of the past, if any, as well as the rent for the period ending on the 31st January, 2000. 4. Petitioners and everyone claiming under him undertake not to change or damage or transfer/alienate/assign in any manner, the accommodation in question. 5. In case tenant-petitioners falls to comply with any of the conditions or directions contained in this order, landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant-petitioners forthwith from the accommodation in question by seeking police force through concerned prescribed authority. 6. Defaulting party shall pay Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) as damages to the other party if there is violation of the undertaking or anyone or more of the conditions contained in this order. ( 13 ) THIS writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations and conditions mentioned above. No order as to costs. .