JUDGMENT S. U. Khan, J.—This is tenant petition arising out of release/eviction proceedings initiated by landlord Shri Karuna Shanker Tewari since deceased and represented by the respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/6 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). The release application was registered on the file of Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar, in the form of release Case No. 38/92. The matter was transferred for disposal to A.C.M.M. VIII/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar. The Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 25.4.2003 allowed the release application with the condition that the landlords shall pay Rs. 12,000 as damages to the tenant. Against the said judgment and order appeal was filed by the tenant being Rent Appeal No. 44 of 2003. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 30.10.2003 dismissed the appeal. Hence this writ petition. 2. The accommodation in dispute is a shop. The problem with both the landlords as well as the tenant is that both of them are quite rich and have got alternative accommodation at their disposal. In the release application as initially filed by the landlord Karuna Shanker Tewari (K. S. Tewari in short) (since deceased) it was stated that shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition and landlord required the same for setting his two sons Sanjai Tewari and Shishir Tewari in Hotel and Restaurant business for which accommodation in dispute was quite suitable. The shop in dispute is situated in premises No. 17/14 the Mall, Kanpur. In the release application it was mentioned that family of the landlord constituted of himself, his wife and aforesaid two sons. It was also pleaded that the tenant was himself owner and landlord of an adjacent house bearing Municipal No. 17/12 the Mall, Kanpur, where he had vacant accommodation at his disposal in which he could very conveniently shift his business. Landlord K. S. Tewari filed an affidavit on 6.2.1995 in para 34 of which (quoted in para 8 of writ petition) he offered alternative accommodation of about 400 sq. feet to the tenant in the same premises, i.e., 17/14. Landlord K. S. Tewari filed an affidavit on 6.2.1995 in para 34 of which (quoted in para 8 of writ petition) he offered alternative accommodation of about 400 sq. feet to the tenant in the same premises, i.e., 17/14. In the said paragraph it was also stated that accommodation No. 17/12 owned by the tenant was partly in his possession and partly in possession of another tenant which tenant could get released and till then landlord was ready to offer alternative accommodation adjacent to the shop in dispute and situate in same premises bearing No. 17/14. During pendency of the release application tenant through an affidavit brought on record the fact that landlord during pendency of the case had constructed big spacious basement ground floor and first floor in accommodation No. 17/14 and had let out the same to Bank of Baroda and D.H.L. The landlord thereafter on 29.2.1996 filed application seeking amendment in the release application. Through the amendment application it was pleaded that meanwhile landlord K. S. Tewari had been enrolled as an advocate and his daughter Smt. Manisha Misra was also practicing as an advocate and both father and daughter intended to establish their office for the purpose of profession of advocacy in the accommodation in dispute. 3. Sri K. S. Tewari original landlord died on 27.6.1998. All the heirs of late K. S. Tewari got themselves substituted even though it was stated by them that K. S. Tewari had executed a Will in favour of his daughter Smt. Manisha Misra. In the said application (copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition) it was stated that Smt. Manisha Misra who was practicing as advocate since 1994 intended to establish her office for carrying profession of advocacy in accommodation in dispute. That application was a combined application seeking substitution as well as amendment in release application. At the end of para 8 of the release application the following was sought to be substituted : "Smt. Manisha Misra is also advocate and working as an advocate in Kanpur Court Compound, Kanpur Nagar since 1994 and she has no accommodation for establishing her office at Kanpur Nagar and as per desire of her father she requires permanent accommodation for establishing her office in her own house." 4. Under Section 21 (7) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is provided that if during pendency of release application landlord dies his legal representative shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased. This provision has been taken note of and discussed in a recent Supreme Court authority in K. N. Agarwal v. D. Devi, 2004 (2) ARC 764. 5. Tenant filed application for spot inspection which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. However on a writ petition filed against the said order this High Court directed Prescribed Authority to make inspection. The Prescribed Authority thereupon inspected the premises and placed on record a detailed note regarding accommodation inspected by him. The inspection was made on 4 days and the report was placed on record by the Prescribed Authority on 1.5.2002. The copy of the said inspection report is Annexure-16 to the writ petition which is of 27 pages. 6. It may be mentioned that against various interim orders passed during pendency of proceedings before courts below five or six writ petitions were earlier filed in this Court by the tenant. 7. As noted earlier tenant had brought on record the fact that during the pendency of release application initial landlord late K. S. Tewari had made huge construction. The trial court as well as lower appellate court in view of this construction recorded a categorical finding in favour of the tenant that landlord late K. S. Tewari had got sufficient accommodation at his disposal according to his need (para 16 of the lower appellate court judgment). In the said paragraph it has also been held that late landlord had ample accommodation available to him which could satisfy his need and need of his family members ; Hotel and Restaurant for sons could be established and late K. S. Tewari could establish his office for the purpose of profession of advocacy also in the accommodation, which became available to him after new construction. It has, categorically been held by both the courts below that in case K. S. Tewari had been alive then his need could not be said to be actual or bona fide. 8. It has, categorically been held by both the courts below that in case K. S. Tewari had been alive then his need could not be said to be actual or bona fide. 8. Both the courts below allowed the release application on the ground of need of Smt. Manisha Misra to establish her chamber for the purpose of profession of advocacy and for establishing business of Shishir Tewari (para 24 of appellate court judgment). 9. Regarding the adjacent accommodation bearing No. 17/12 purchased by the tenant, the tenant asserted that even though one portion of accommodation was in his actual occupation and there he was storing his commercial goods, however, some portion of the said accommodation was in possession of tenant which was so situate that it curtailed access from road of the whole accommodation hence until that portion was vacated by its tenant and came in actual occupation of the landlord it was not possible to shift the entire business therein without incurring recurring loss of business. 10. It was also argued in this writ petition by the learned counsel for tenant petitioner that portion occupied by D.H.L. had been vacant and was in possession of the landlord. In this regard it may be noted that even before the court below tenant had asserted that D.H.L. (a courier service) was likely to vacate and was in process of vacation. Learned counsel for landlord in the writ petition could not deny that D.H.L. had actually vacated. 11. In view of the above facts this Court was of the opinion that it was a fit case where parties should explore the chances of compromise and both the parties must consider as to whether part of the accommodation in dispute or any portion of the premises No. 17/14 adjacent to the accommodation in dispute could be occupied/permitted to be occupied by the tenant. 12. Learned counsel for the landlord respondent vehemently argued that the entire accommodation in dispute was bona fidely required by the substituted landlords particularly Smt. Manisha Misra for establishing her chamber and tenant having adjacent accommodation 17/12 at his disposal did not deserve either part of the accommodation in dispute or any other adjacent accommodation of the landlord. 12. Learned counsel for the landlord respondent vehemently argued that the entire accommodation in dispute was bona fidely required by the substituted landlords particularly Smt. Manisha Misra for establishing her chamber and tenant having adjacent accommodation 17/12 at his disposal did not deserve either part of the accommodation in dispute or any other adjacent accommodation of the landlord. Learned counsel for landlords also gave a sentimental touch to his argument by pleading that it was the desire of late K. S. Tewari father of Smt. Manisha Misra that Smt. Manisha Misra shall establish her chamber in the accommodation in dispute and late K. S. Tewari could not fulfil his desire during his life time. The Court is quite sympathetic towards the sentiment of the landlords particularly Smt. Manisha Misra but cases are not decided by the Courts on sentimental basis. 13. During arguments it was admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that D.H.L. was paying rent of Rs. 18,000 per month. 14. On 6.10.2004 when judgment was reserved learned counsel for tenant petitioner filed an application supported by affidavit of tenant petitioner D. P. Gupta expressing his willingness to take the portion vacated by the D.H.L. for the same rent which was being paid by the D.H.L., i.e., Rs. 18,000 per month. 15. In the said affidavit it has also been stated that the petitioner was making offer with the request that inspite of rent being more than Rs. 2,000 per month Rent Control Act might be made applicable. In para 5 it has been stated that the petitioner would vacate the portion in his tenancy accommodation within one year after his getting possession of portion in premises No. 17/12 from his tenant. 16. Learned counsel for landlord did not accept the offer. In the written argument filed on behalf of the landlord it has been stated that the portion occupied by the D.H.L. was earlier also offered to the tenant by the initial landlord but the tenant did not accept the said offer. 16. Learned counsel for landlord did not accept the offer. In the written argument filed on behalf of the landlord it has been stated that the portion occupied by the D.H.L. was earlier also offered to the tenant by the initial landlord but the tenant did not accept the said offer. It has also been stated in the written argument that "However during the course of argument, in anticipation of any vacancy of DHL portion sooner or later, an offer of the said portion at market rate was made to the petitioner tenant but the petitioner objected the offer on the ground that DHL portion should be given to him under Rent Control Act, which cannot be accepted by respondent at any stretch of imagination nor sustainable under the Rent Control Act as the rent of DHL is more than Rs. 2,000. Under these circumstances the offer of the portion of DHL fizzled out." 17. The Court also suggested that the shop in dispute which is quite big in area might be divided into two equal portions and one of the said portions could be released and the other portion could be permitted to be retained by the tenant on good rent. The tenant accepted the suggestion but the landlord declined the same. 18. It has not been brought on record as to what is the extent of practice of Smt. Manisha Misra and why her advocate chamber cannot be adequately adjusted in part of the accommodation in dispute. 19. Both the courts below categorically held that during pendency of release application original landlord K. S. Tewari had made so much construction in which he could adjust his sons in business. After recording this finding it was not open to the courts below to hold that Shishir Tewari bona fidely required accommodation in dispute or part thereof for establishing business. This finding is contrary to the earlier finding and is not sustainable in law. 20. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for release of half of the accommodation in dispute or in the alternative for release of the entire accommodation in dispute on the condition that landlords give the accommodation vacated by the DHL in exchange to the tenant. 21. Accordingly writ petition is allowed in part. 21. Accordingly writ petition is allowed in part. Half of the accommodation in dispute is released in favour of the landlord. A wall must be raised exactly in between the shop in dispute in such manner that length of the sides towards the road of both the portions is equal and one portion of the choice of the landlords shall stand released in their favour and the other portion shall continue to be in tenancy occupation of the tenant at the rent of Rs. 10,000 per month. In Khursheeda v. ADJ, 2004 (1) AWC 851 : 2004 (2) ARC 64, I have held that while granting relief to the tenant in a rent control matter High Court is empowered to enhance the rent to the reasonable extent). The division of shop and delivery of possession shall take place within three months and for this purpose application may be filed before the Prescribed Authority who shall effect the partition on the spot and deliver possession of one portion to the landlord as aforesaid within three months. 22. However, in case landlords within three months from today offer the accommodation vacated by DHL to the tenant through registered notice (copy of which shall also be given to the learned counsel for the tenant in this writ petition) then entire accommodation shall stand released in favour of the landlords and simultaneously accommodation vacated by the DHL shall be given on rent of Rs. 18,000 per month to the tenant by the landlords within three months from the date of intimation of offer by the landlord to the tenant. The exchange shall take place simultaneously, with the help of Prescribed Authority if necessary. The Rent Control Act must be deemed to be applicable on the said building inspite of its, rent being more than Rs. 2,000 per month. 23. In any of the above eventualities rent must be enhanced by Rs. 1,000 per month after every year. For the period during which tenant continues to occupy the entire shop in dispute, he shall be liable to pay Rs. 15,000 as rent starting from December, 2004. The amount of Rs. 5,000 per month paid by the tenant to the landlord as condition of stay order passed in this writ petition shall be deemed to have been paid as rent till November, 2004. 24. 15,000 as rent starting from December, 2004. The amount of Rs. 5,000 per month paid by the tenant to the landlord as condition of stay order passed in this writ petition shall be deemed to have been paid as rent till November, 2004. 24. It is further directed that within six months from the date of vacation of the portion by the tenant of the petitioner in premises No. 17/12 tenant petitioner shall hand over the possession to the landlords of half of the shop in dispute authorized to be retained by him or of the portion vacated by the DHL and given to the tenant in exchange of the entire accommodation in dispute whichever may be the case. 25. The rent has been fixed by this Court keeping in view of the valuation of the property which is situated on the Mall an important market of Kanpur Nagar which is more expensive industrial town of the U. P. 26. In the end it may be mentioned that learned counsel for both the parties filed detailed written arguments supported by plethora of case law. 27. Writ petition is allowed in part accordingly.