JUDGMENT Hon’ble S. U. Khan, J.—This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by original landlord Ram Sharan against petitioner and his mother Smt. Sushila Devi (Smt. Sushila Devi died during pendency of proceedings before the Courts below). Release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 and was registered as P.A. case No. 143 of 1983 on the file of prescribed authority Allahabad. 2. Property in dispute is a double storied building. On the ground floor petitioner is carrying on business of selling sweets. According to the landlord entire building was given for residential purpose however afterwards ground floor was converted into commercial accommodation and petitioner continued to reside on the first floor. According to the tenant petitioner the entire building was taken on rent by him alone for commercial purpose and it was never used for residential purpose. In the same locality where building in dispute is situate, a big house was acquired by the tenants. According to the landlord the said house was very near to the accommodation in dispute and was situate on the road hence Halwai business could very well be carried out by the tenant petitioner from the ground floor of the said accommodation. Tenant petitioner pleaded that the said building was constructed by her mother Smt. Sushila Devi (who was opposite party No. 2 in the release application) and petitioner had no concern with the said building and he was not even residing therein as relations between his wife and his mother were quite strained. However that point is no more available to the petitioner as Smt. Sushila Devi died during pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below and he inherited the said house. 3. During pendency of the release application before the prescribed authority original landlord Ram Sharan died and was substituted by his three sons Kamal Narain, Prem Narain and Laxmi Narain respondents 1 to 3. Daughter of Ram Saran, Pratapa Devi was also impleaded as formal party however she had no concern. She has died and her sons are respondents 4 to 6 in this writ petition. Release application was got amended and it was pleaded therein that accommodation in dispute had fallen in the share of Kamal Narain alone by mutual partition and he required the same for his need. She has died and her sons are respondents 4 to 6 in this writ petition. Release application was got amended and it was pleaded therein that accommodation in dispute had fallen in the share of Kamal Narain alone by mutual partition and he required the same for his need. It was further pleaded that the ancestral house bearing No. 5 Attarsuiya, Allahabad was divided among all the three sons of original landlord Ram Sharan. Four rooms had fallen in the share of Kamal Narain out of which one was only 6 feet high hence it could not be used for residential purpose and it was fit to be used only as store. 4. Prescribed authority appointed Vakil Commissioner to inspect the ancestral house of the landlord bearing No. 5 Attarsuiya, Allahabad and accommodation in. dispute bearing No. 456 Attarsuiya, Allahabad. Partition among the three sons of Ram Sharan was not seriously disputed by the tenant. Advocate Commissioner found that in the ancestral house middle portion had come in the share of Kamal Narain. Commissioner found that in one of the rooms Ajay Kumar son of Kamal Narain was residing alongwith his family and in another room Ratan Kumar son of Kamal Narain was residing and in one room Kamal Narain was residing with his wife, three daughters and widowed aunt and on the first floor there was only one room of six feet height. 5. Inspite of so much shortage of accommodation available to the landlord Kamal Narain, prescribed authority held that the need of Kamal Narain was not bona fide. However the prescribed authority found that balance of hardship lay in favour of the landlords. Ultimately release application was rejected for want of bona fide need through judgment and order dated 16.4.1987. Against the said judgment and order Kamal Narain filed R.C. Appeal No. 201 of 1987. He impleaded his brothers and sisters as proforma respondents. Ist Additional District Judge, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 allowed the appeal, set-aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord hence this writ petition by the tenant. Appellate Court awarded one year’s rent as damages to the tenant. 6. In the release application need for commercial as well as residential purpose was set-up. Appellate Court awarded one year’s rent as damages to the tenant. 6. In the release application need for commercial as well as residential purpose was set-up. Kamal Narain stated that he did not like his family profession of Prohit (performing religious rites at the time of death of a person and cremation of his dead body) and for want of proper accommodation to start some business, he had joined the service of gatekeeper in a cinema hall. He also pleaded that his sons also required accommodation for starting business, as they were also not interested in the family profession of Prohit. Tenant suggested that Kamal Narain and his sons should continue the profession of Prohit as it was quite lucrative and more profitable. Appellate Court rightly held that no one can be compelled to carry on the family profession and that among those people who perform religious rites, the persons who perform such rites at the time of death of a person are considered to be at the bottom of ladder and there is nothing wrong if a person of such family of Prohit wants to change his profession. Reasoning given by the lower appellate Court is quite sound. Even apart from it, tenant cannot dictate the landlord to carry on his family profession. Every one is free to adopt any profession or do any business, which he considers to be more profitable and respectable. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. U.L. Insurance Company, AIR 1999 SC 106 that tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without seeking eviction of the tenant. 7. As far as residential need is concerned, it was amply proved on record that landlord was suffering from acute shortage of accommodation. Tenant has got a big house at his disposal, which is very near to the accommodation in dispute and on the ground floor of the said house he can also carry on business. After the death of his mother the said house has come in the share of tenant petitioner. The finding of the prescribed authority holding the need of the landlord to be not bona fide was utterly illegal. On the facts found, it can safely be said that not only the need of the landlord is bona fide but it is quite pressing rather dire. 8. The finding of the prescribed authority holding the need of the landlord to be not bona fide was utterly illegal. On the facts found, it can safely be said that not only the need of the landlord is bona fide but it is quite pressing rather dire. 8. The allegation of tenant that during pendency of proceedings some more rooms had been constructed by the landlord was thoroughly disbelieved by the lower appellate Court. The said finding apart from being a finding of fact hence not amenable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is also quite correct. Absolutely no cogent evidence to prove the same was brought on record by the tenant. Tenant did not even request for local inspection in respect of the said allegation. 9. Accordingly I do not find least error in the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. 10. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that— (1) Within one month from today he files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. (2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioner to vacate he is required to pay Rs. 3000/- (at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the prescribed authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed and Rs. 3000/- is not deposited before the prescribed authority within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 11. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3,000/- the house in dispute is not vacated on or before six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. Petition Dismissed. ———