B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE accommodation in dispute is commercial building situated at 38/4, Gillis Bazar, Kanpur. The respondent No. 2 who is landlady of the premises filed an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 alleging that she bona fide require the premises to settle her son Vinay Madho Khanna in the business who is without employment and is married and had one son and one daughter aged 10 years and 6 years respectively ; that he is looking after the cattle market in village Ramaipur, district Kanpur Nagar which is held on Monday and Thursday only ; that, therefore, the landlady in order to augment her income want that her son be employed on all the days of the week in some permanent business. The petitioners contested the application for release. The application for release was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by judgment dated 14. 5. 1998. Annexure-8 to the petition. Against that order, the respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 105 of 1998 under Section 22 of u. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 which has been allowed by the judgment dated 5. 1. 2001 by respondent No. 1. Annexure-9 to the petition. The premises has been released in favour of landlady-respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by it, the present petition has been preferred invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Kant, senior advocate assisted by Sri R. K. Khanna, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that the landlady has only one son Vinay Madho Khanna. The landlady had a cattle market named Madhobag in village Ramaipur and it is being managed by her son. However, this fact has not been denied that this market is being held on two days in a week only on Monday and Thursday. It is alleged that, therefore, it is necessary for the landlady to start some business for the permanent engagement of her son on all the days and to augment her income. However, this fact has not been denied that this market is being held on two days in a week only on Monday and Thursday. It is alleged that, therefore, it is necessary for the landlady to start some business for the permanent engagement of her son on all the days and to augment her income. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the landlady-respondent No. 2 has sufficient income from the cattle market ; that she has large income from the rent of other tenanted accommodations and it is not necessary for her to augment the income. It is contended that no accounts book or details have been filed to show that the income is not sufficient for the family of the landlady ; that the business intended to be started in the disputed premises has also not been disclosed ; that. therefore, there is no need of the landlady for the premises in dispute and the appellate court has erred in holding that she has a bona fide need. ( 5 ) I have considered the arguments. It is not disputed that the son of the landlady-respondent No. 2 is looking after and managing the cattle market which is held on two days only in a week. Therefore, on other five days of the week, he is without work and, therefore, the need for starting a business for him is bona fide. The argument that details of the income has not been given and it has not been disclosed as to why there is necessity to augment the income and, that the income from the cattle market and from rent is not sufficient for the landlady, cannot be accepted. In my opinion, it was not necessary to give such details. Now a days no body is satisfied with his own income and every body wants to augment his income irrespective of the fact as to what he is earning. Even if, the income from the cattle market and the rent is sufficient for the livelihood of the landlady and his son, they have right to further augment the Income to raise their standard of living for which there are no limits now a days. Even if, the income from the cattle market and the rent is sufficient for the livelihood of the landlady and his son, they have right to further augment the Income to raise their standard of living for which there are no limits now a days. Even if it is found that the income is sufficient for the livelihood of the landlady and her family, her son cannot be directed not to start any other business and to remain sitting at home for five days in a week. In the circumstances, the need of the landlady for the disputed premises for setting of a business appears to be bona fide. ( 6 ) IN this connection, it has also been argued that the business Intended to be set up by the landlady has not been disclosed. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Khetan v. Bibi Jubaida and others, AIR 1995 sc 576 . The Apex Court has held In this case that mere nondisclosure of the nature of business in the application for release does not establish that the need set up by the landlord is not bona fide. In view of the above decision. It cannot be said that the need is not bona fide for the reason that the nature of the business has not been disclosed. ( 7 ) SRI Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to few decision in support of his arguments. The first is M/s. Lalita Printers Stores v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, 1981 arc 649. In this case, it was pleaded by the landlord that he has to start the business to augment the existing income. It was observed that the accounts books are the best evidence to prove insufficiency of income from the existing business. The landlord should, therefore, have produced accounts books. In this case. It was found that the landlord was not completely unemployed and, therefore, the question of income arose. He was carrying on some other business. As such, this authority is of no help. The next case referred to is Gopal Krishna Gupta v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 1995 (2) ARC 107. In this case. It was found that the landlord was not completely unemployed and, therefore, the question of income arose. He was carrying on some other business. As such, this authority is of no help. The next case referred to is Gopal Krishna Gupta v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 1995 (2) ARC 107. It was observed in this case that once it is pleaded that the income was insufficient, the insufficiency of the income assumes importance and it becomes the duty of the landlord to produce the accounts books so that a correct finding could be recorded in this behalf. This authority is also of no help to the petitioners. In the present case, the landlady has not only alleged that she has insufficient Income for the livelihood and that she want to augment her income but has also alleged the need for the engagement of her son on all the days of the week. I have already stated that every body, irrespective of the fact as to how much he is earning, has a right to augment his Income. Therefore, the need of the landlady appears to be genuine and bona fide and I find no reason to interfere in the findings of the appellate court on this point. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has also challenged the findings on the question of comparative hardship. It is contended that the petitioners are tenant of the premises in dispute since last 70 years and are carrying on business in the same. This fact has not been denied except to the extent that at present, the shop is being used only as godown and no business is being carried on in the same ; that the petitioners have another shop at the Mestan Road on which they are carrying on business. Learned counsel has referred to clause (a) of sub-clause (2) of Rule 16 and argued that the petitioners are old tenants and there is lessor justification for releasing the shop. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding that the shop In dispute is a godown and, therefore, this clause will not apply ; that, therefore, the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlady. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding that the shop In dispute is a godown and, therefore, this clause will not apply ; that, therefore, the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlady. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that even in case the need is held to be bona fide and the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlady ; even then there is no justification for releasing the entire shop. It is undisputed that the size of the disputed shop is 28 feet x 52 feet : that it can be divided into two parts and the need of the landlady can be satisfied by the release of the half shop only. Learned counsel argued that though Rule 16 (1) (d) does not apply to the commercial buildings. Even then the Court has jurisdiction to consider whether the release of the part of the building will serve the purpose of requirement for the business. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument referred to the decisions in the case of Firm m/s. Shankar Das Durga Prasad v. IVth Addl. District Judge. Meerut, 1981 ARC 229 and dwarika Prasad v. IInd Addl. District Judge, 2000 (1) ARC 3. In the first case, it was observed that absence of commercial premises in Rule 16 (1) (d) does not mean that the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the release of the part of the business premises. In the case of Dwarika prasad v. IInd Addl. District Judge, it has been held by this Court that where the shop is a big one to maintain equities between the parties, the shop can be released partially. ( 11 ) IN this case, the landlady has not disclosed the nature of the business intended to be started by her son. For this, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 took shelter of the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Khetan (supra ). No doubt, the landlady can take shelter of the decision for proving that she has bona fide need for the premises in dispute without disclosing the nature of the business intended to be started. No doubt, the landlady can take shelter of the decision for proving that she has bona fide need for the premises in dispute without disclosing the nature of the business intended to be started. However, once the question for consideration arise whether the need shall be satisfied by the release of the part of the accommodation, the question as to what business is intended to be started becomes very material. In the present case, the nature of business Intended to be started has not been disclosed by the landlady upto this stage. Therefore, I find that the need of the landlady will be satisfied by the release of the half of the disputed shop which is of very big size 28 feet x 52 feet. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed in part. The order, Annexure-9 to the petition dated 5. 1. 2001 is modified to the extent that half of the shop in dispute is released in favour of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 will get a wall constructed in between the shop dividing it in two equal portions in such a manner that half of the front portion of the shop is available in each portion. The expenses of raising the wall shall be borne by the landlady. One portion of the shop of the choice of the landlady shall stand released in favour of the landlady and one portion shall remain in the tenancy of the petitioners. However, the rent payable by the petitioners shall also become half from the date the possession of half shop is taken by the landlady. ( 13 ) IT is also directed that the petitioners shall extend full cooperation in the raising of the wall by the landlady and for that purpose will provide vacant place by removing their goods. In case the petitioner does not cooperate in the raising of the wall and creates obstruction, the entire shop shall stand released.