JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition, by the tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 19th August, 2004 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order of the prescribed authority under the Act dated 17.2.2004 is dismissed and the application filed by the respondent-landlords under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act has been allowed by the prescribed authority and the prescribed authority directed release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. 2. Brief facts are that respondent-landlords father, Arjun Prasad, filed an application before the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the building in question is more than 150 years old and the building is in dilapidated condition which may fall down any time. Apart from the above Arjun Prasad also stated that he has two sons, Devanand and Vidyanand, who are 38 and 29 years of age respectively, who could not study beyond Intermediate and are still unemployed. The landlord, therefore, wanted to settle them in two separate businesses. It is, therefore, prayed that premises may be released in favour of the landlord for aforesaid bona fide need. The landlord filed the aforesaid application further on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. The landlord further submitted that in order to settle the two sons, Devananad and Vidyanand, the landlord’s need is bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship the landlord stated that the tenant will not suffer any hardship because he has another big house in the same town Shahganj where he can easily shift his business. The aforesaid allegations were denied by the tenant who filed a written statement. It would not be out of place to mention that during the pendency of the said application Arjun Prasad, the landlord, died and his sons, Devanand and Vidyanand were substituted and they filed affidavit. The tenant denied the allegations made by the landlord and stated that the building is not 150 years old as alleged by the landlord and that it is not in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. The tenant denied the allegations made by the landlord and stated that the building is not 150 years old as alleged by the landlord and that it is not in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. The building is in good condition and in the adjoining shop itself Arjun Prasad was carrying on business which is now looked after by his two sons and his widow. Therefore, it is submitted by the tenant that the need of the landlord is flimsy, what to say of bona fide. The tenant has also raised the plea that two brothers Israr Ahmad and Irshad Ahmad were carrying on business in the shop in dispute from the time of their father, Shamsuddin, under the name and style of Firm Shamsuddin Irshad Ahmad and the landlord has deliberately not impleaded Irshad Ahmad who is also carrying on business in the shop in dispute and has inherited the tenancy. The tenant has also raised a plea that apart from two sons of deceased Arjun Prasad the widow of Arjun Prasad and his daughters also inherited the property but have not been impleaded. Therefore, for this reason alone the application is liable to be dismissed. Since Irshad Ahmad has not been impleaded as respondent the application is liable to be dismissed on this, ground also. On the question of bona fide need the tenant has stated that the landlord possesses much more accommodation that what is required and in case they want to set up business they have ample accommodation at their disposal. Therefore, the need of the landlord cannot be said to be either bona fide or pressing. It is also stated by the tenant that in case the landlord require the accommodation in dispute they would have not let out a shop 10 years ago. The tenant also denied the case of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant’s contention is that the landlord has not complied with the provisions of the Act and the Rules of submitting necessary documents which requires support of an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. The landlord has not also complied with the provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. The landlord has not also complied with the provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. The shop in dispute, as the tenant says, was occupied on rent by the father of the preset tenants who started a cloth business from the shop in dispute which is continuously being carried on and, therefore, the shop has earned a goodwill and in case the tenants are shifted from the shop they will lose the goodwill. The tenants do not have any other shop where they can shift their business and carry on their business. The shop cannot be said to be in a dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. 3. Before the prescribed authority, after exchange of pleadings and evidence on the record the prescribed authority dealt with the objection raised by the tenant and found that the question that all the heirs of Arjun Prasad have not been impleaded does not in any way effect the maintainability of application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act as two sons are already there. On the question of brother of petitioner being not impleaded prescribed authority found from the evidence that the brother of the petitioner-tenant is in service outside India which is clear from the evidence on the record. On the question of building being in dilapidated condition after assessing evidence of both the sites the prescribed authority found that the building is in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. On the question of bona fide requirement the prescribed authority recorded a finding that the landlord requires the accommodation in dispute bona fide as the accommodations which are suggested by the tenant were either not commercial accommodations or were occupied by the tenants. Thus the prescribed authority found that the need of the landlord is bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship the prescribed authority found that the tenant has a big house on the road side to which the tenant can shift t his business. The objection of the tenant is that the building suggested by the landlord is in residential locality whereby the business of the tenant cannot be shifted. The prescribed authority recorded a finding that the residential accommodation of the tenant is situate on 50 feet wide road side. The objection of the tenant is that the building suggested by the landlord is in residential locality whereby the business of the tenant cannot be shifted. The prescribed authority recorded a finding that the residential accommodation of the tenant is situate on 50 feet wide road side. It was, therefore, found by the prescribed authority that it will not affect the tenant in any way if he shifts to the aforesaid accommodation. On the question of loss of goodwill the prescribed authority found that mere shifting of business will not cause loss of goodwill. On the question of building being dilapidated condition the prescribed authority found that on the evidence on the record the building is in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. Thus the prescribed authority allowed the application filed by the landlord and directed release of accommodation in favour of the landlord. 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority the tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. Before the appellate authority the same arguments were advanced as were advanced before the prescribed authority. The appellate authority considered the entire material on the record including the evidence and affirmed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority with regard to bona fide requirement of the landlord, comparative hardship and dilapidated condition of the building which requires demolition and reconstruction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the order passed by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except that he submitted that the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are such that no reasonable person can arrive at. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, (2004) 3 SCC 682 , wherein the Apex Court has held that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-evaluate or reappraise the evidence on the record that what has been arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority unless the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority is demonstrated either perverse or suffering from manifest error of law. Nothing of the sort has been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that either the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are perverse or suffer from any manifest error of law. 5. Before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by filing amendment application seeking amendment, which was allowed to the effect that in the original application filed by the landlord it has not been pleaded that the son Devanand whose need has been found favour by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, this statement is incorrect. A perusal of the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act before the prescribed authority categorically states in para 3 that the landlord had two sons, Devanand and Vidyanand, aged 38 years and 29 years respectively. They have studied only up to Intermediate and that the landlord requires the disputed accommodation for their bona fide requirement. 6. No other arguments were advanced. 7. In view of what has been stated above the writ petition has no merits and is dismissed. 8. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is carrying on business since long time, he needs some reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in question. 6. No other arguments were advanced. 7. In view of what has been stated above the writ petition has no merits and is dismissed. 8. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is carrying on business since long time, he needs some reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice I direct that the order of eviction of the petitioner shall not be executed for a period of six months from today, provided : (1) the petitioner furnishes undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of three weeks from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the accommodation in question to the landlord on or before 15th November 2006; (2) the petitioner pays the entire arrear of rent/damages calculated at the rate of rent within three weeks from today, if not already paid, by either depositing the same before the prescribed authority or paying the same to the landlord-respondent and keeps on depositing the future rent/damages by first week of the succeeding month in the manner prescribed above. The amount if deposited before the prescribed authority by the petitioner-tenant, the landlord shall be permitted to withdraw the same. Provided also that the building being in dilapidated condition may not fall down. 9. In the event of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open to the landlord to get the order of eviction executed against the petitioner. Petition Dismissed. ———