S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady respondent No. 1 under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner. ( 2 ) PROPERTY in dispute is a shop. The landlady initially pleaded that after the death of her husband (which occurred about 9 years before the filing of the release application), her three sons respondent opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 did not look after her properly, hence she needed the shop in dispute to start business of selling sundry goods (purchune shop ). In release application it was pointed out that other commercial accommodation were available to the tenant and were in his occupation and use. ( 3 ) THE release application being Rent Case No. 1 of 1989 was dismissed by IVth Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar/prescribed Authority, through judgment and order dated 26. 11. 1996. The prescribed authority held the need not to be bonafide. The prescribed authority refused to decide the question of comparative hardship on the ground that release application was liable to be dismissed on the ground of absence of bonafide need, hence there was no necessity to decide the question of comparative hardship. The landlady respondent No. 1 filed appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the prescribed authority, which was numbered as Rent Appeal No. 5 of 1997 and was transferred for disposal before the VIIIth additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Before the appellate authority, tenant filed some additional evidence and in rebuttal thereof landlady also adduced evidence. The tenant asserted in his affidavit before the lower court that landlady had suffered Paralytic stroke, hence she became wholly unfit for doing any business. The landlady in rebuttal filed an affidavit stating therein that she would carry on business with the help of her two grandsons. In the initial release application, there was no such averment. However, by adducing additional evidence in the appeal the tenant provided her an opportunity, which she availed. Now it is no more open to the tenant to say that in the absence of pleadings, the said averment of the landlady shall not be taken into consideration. After the averment that landlady Intended to carry on business with the help of her grandsons, taking into consideration the need of the grandsons also was quite permissible. Now it is no more open to the tenant to say that in the absence of pleadings, the said averment of the landlady shall not be taken into consideration. After the averment that landlady Intended to carry on business with the help of her grandsons, taking into consideration the need of the grandsons also was quite permissible. It has been stated in the affidavit filed by the landlady before the lower appellate court that the said grandsons are aged about 20 to 23 years and are not doing any job. Grandsons are included in the definition of the family given in Section 3 (g) (ii) (Male Lineal Descendants ). With regard to Paralytic stroke, the landlady stated that she had recovered and was capable of doing normal physical work. ( 4 ) IT was also argued by the learned counsel for the tenant before the tower appellate court as well as this Court that two shops belonging to the landlady and his sons were let out to other tenants during the pendency of the case, hence it disproved the need of the landlady. The lower appellate court in this regard accepted the version of the landlady that by mutual understanding those two shops were in control of his two sons who let those shops and did not allow the landlady to start business in the said shops. ( 5 ) THE tenant had also questioned the title of the landlady. According to the case set up by the petitioner, the property in dispute, was acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority (K. D. A. ). The prescribed authority even though dismissed the release application but decided this question in favour of the landlady. The prescribed authority held that till 8. 1. 1981 tenant had paid the rent to the landlady meaning thereby that after the said date tenant had not paid the rent to the landlady. The prescribed authority also held that acquisition proceedings were subjudice and tenant could not get any benefit of the same. The case of the tenant was that the entire house including the shop in dispute which is part thereof was acquired by Kanpur Development authority, however, tenant himself pleaded that other two shops which were also part of the same house were available to the landlady and were let out by her (or her sons) during the pendency of the appeal. Tenant also admitted that in the main house landlady was residing. Both these assertions are self-contradictory. The prescribed authority has held that the scheme under which, the house in dispute, was acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority, had been declared Illegal in Case No. 253 of 1981. Pendency of appeal against the same cannot affect the title of the landlady and cannot benefit the tenant. In rejoinder-affidavit filed in March, 2003 in para 4 it has been stated that deponent had to pay the occupancy charges to Kanpur Development authority and deponent was not in position to pay the rent to the landlady as well as to the kanpur Development Authority. This clearly amounts to the admission on the part of the tenant to the affect that he is not paying any rent to the landlady. The tenant has actually declared his intention of not paying any rent and has denied his liability to pay the rent. In para 27 of the writ petition, it has very boldly been stated "that Courts below have totally failed to consider that the disputed property has been acquired by Kanpur Development Authority and number of demand notice by K. D. A. has been sent to the petitioner demanding occupancy charges of Rs. 11,000, part of which was paid and the petitioner is not paying any rent to the opposite party No. 1 since 1981. " Neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder-affidavit anything has been said regarding the judgment which was given in Suit No. 253 of 1981 declaring , the acquisition scheme invalid (as mentioned in judgment passed by trial court ). ( 6 ) IT has come in the evidence and tenant has admitted that he has got in possession a godown. From the premises in dispute, the tenant is carrying on the practice of Aayurvedic medicines. The tenant can carry on the said practice from the said godown also. It has been stated by the tenant that he is storing the goods in the godown, however, what type of goods are being stored, has not been stated, The tenant has also stated that the said godown is situate in a narrow lane. The tenant can very well shift his practice in the godown. Practice of doctor or vaid depends much on his expertise than location of clinic. The tenant can very well shift his practice in the godown. Practice of doctor or vaid depends much on his expertise than location of clinic. This is a very strong ground on the basis of which there shall be greater Justification for allowing the release application of the landlady as provided under Rule 16 (2) (b) of the Rules framed under the Act. The balance of comparative hardship, therefore, lies in favour of landlady. ( 7 ) THE view of the lower appellate court that even if the two adjoining shops were let out to the other tenant during the pendency of the appeal, it would not make any difference as these two shops were under the control of the two sons of the landlady cannot be said to be perfectly in accordance with law. However, in view of the fact that the tenant is not paying rent for more than 22 years (since January, 1981) and is even denying his liability to pay the rent, disentitles him to seek the discretionary relief by Invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Such conduct acts as a bar against exercise of writ Jurisdiction. If the writ petition is allowed, it would mean that the tenant petitioner would be entitled to continue in possession without paying any rent to the landlady. This will amount to great injustice to the landlady-respondent. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, even though I find that approach of the lower appellate court in considering the availability of other shops to the landlady was rather shaky in law. However, I do not propose to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the basis of conduct of the tenant-petitioner. ( 9 ) WRIT petition is dismissed. However, tenant-petitioner is granted six months time provided that within one month from today he files an undertaking before prescribed authority to the effect that within the aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate the shop in dispute and handover the possession to the landlady-respondent. .