JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the landlady respondent No. 1, who has appeared through caveat. 2. This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady respondent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 26 of 1999. Property in dispute consists of two shops, one in tenancy occupation of petitioners No. 1 to 3 and proforma respondents No. 2 and 3 and the other in tenancy occupation of petitioner No. 4, P.D. Agarwal, both are paying rent of Rs. 92.63 per month each. Area of each shop is 84 sq. yard or 756 sq. feet (18 x 42). The property in dispute was purchased by the landlady application through registered sale-deed on 1.4.1986. It was situate on lease-hold land, which was got converted into free-hold by the landlady by paying about Rs. 10.67 lacs including stamp duty. Landlady offered some alternative shops to the tenants. She also stated that Allahabad Development Authority had constructed a complex in the Civil Lines, where shops in dispute are situate, and those shops were available on different prices ranging between Rs. 2 lacs to Rs. 6 lacs and landlady was ready to purchase one shop to each of the tenants of their choice meaning thereby that both tenants could take shop of Rs. 6 lacs each. It was further stated by the landlady that in case shops are released in her favour, after demolishing them, she would construct multi-storeyed commercial complex and she offered two shops to the tenants in the said complex. All the three offers were contemptuously rejected by the tenants. Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 13, Allahabad allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 31.7.2006. Landlady was directed to pay two years rent to each of the tenants. Against the said judgment and order, tenants petitioners filed appeal being R.C. Appeal No. 138 of 2006. A.D.J. Court No. 1, Allahabad, through judgment and order dated 28.7.2007, allowed the appeal in part. The finding of bona fide need recorded by the Prescribed Authority was approved by the Appellate Court. Against the said judgment and order, tenants petitioners filed appeal being R.C. Appeal No. 138 of 2006. A.D.J. Court No. 1, Allahabad, through judgment and order dated 28.7.2007, allowed the appeal in part. The finding of bona fide need recorded by the Prescribed Authority was approved by the Appellate Court. However, in respect of comparative hardship, Appellate Court directed that after construction of the multi-storeyed commercial complex by the landlady on the site of the disputed shops, the landlady shall provide two shops to each of the tenants. The shops to be given to the tenants were particularly marked in the sanctioned map by the learned A.D.J. The Appellate Court further held that objection of the tenants that the area of the said two shops proposed to be constructed was much less in comparison to the area of the instant shops, hence the learned A.D.J. directed that sanctioned plan should suitably be got amended and the shops must be constructed on slightly bigger area. Last two paragraphs of the Appellate Court judgment and order (operative portion) are quoted below : "The offers and counter offers made by both the parties were not accepted by each other. After considering all the facts I am of the view that the learned Court below has rightly held need of the landlady as genuine. Regarding comparative hardships learned Court below has found the need in favour of the landlady but I am of the view that after considering the comparative hardship of both the parties it shall be proper to modify the impugned judgment on this point (comparative hardship). It shall be proper that the premises in dispute may be released and the landlady be directed to demolish the same and reconstruct the same as per sanctioned plan duly approved by the A.D.A. which is on record as 42B/7 in the learned Court below. The proposed offer which has been shown with red colour and with 1 and 2 in the said map may be provided to the appellants tenants but with little more space. The proposed offer which has been shown with red colour and with 1 and 2 in the said map may be provided to the appellants tenants but with little more space. In the sanctioned plan in the west side of the proposed accommodation an open space of 17.6" and 23.3" has been shown in the southern side and in the northern side an entrance of similar width has been shown that may be altered little bit so that the proposed accommodation may be enlarged in the west so that two shops each of the 10 feet x 20 feet are carved out and those may be offered to the tenants. If these proposed accommodations are enlarged the same shall not affect the sanctioned plan and even if necessary the supplementary plan may be submitted in the A.D.A. alongwith a copy of this order who should consider to approve the same. The appeal deserves to be partly allowed. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed against O.P. No. 1 Smt. Neeru Kapoor. Both the parties shall bear their own cost. Both the appellants/tenants are directed to vacate the shops/premises. The landlady is directed to demolish the disputed structure and reconstruct the same as per sanctioned plan which is Annexure 1 to the affidavit 42B by providing one shop each of an area of at least 200 square feet to each set of tenants within 4 months after the same is vacated on the ground floor in the disputed premises, to be vacated. During this period of 4 months the landlady shall pay to each tenant Rs. 6,000/- per month so that they can arrange some stop-gap arrangements. If reconstruction is not completed within 4 months then from the 5th month onwards the landlady will pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to each set of tenants and shall ensure reconstruction is completed within 6 months after the premises is vacated. Before getting the building vacated the landlady must make all necessary arrangements and provisions and she shall serve a written notice to the tenants fixing a date for vacating the premises giving at least 45 days time to tenants to vacate the same. The tenants/appellants are directed to file an affidavit in this Court whether they are willing to accept the above direction or not. The tenants/appellants are directed to file an affidavit in this Court whether they are willing to accept the above direction or not. In case they are not willing to follow the above direction then the impugned judgment shall stand good and the landlady shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has very categorically argued and stated that when arguments in the appeal were concluded and judgment was reserved, the Appellate Court did not indicate that it would be directing delivery of possession of two new shops to the tenants after suggesting amendments in the plan otherwise tenants would have out rightly rejected the said offer/suggestion. In any case no affidavit as directed by the Appellate Court was filed by the tenants. Learned Counsel has argued that firstly even the extended area would be much less than the area of the shops occupied by each tenant and secondly it would not be easy to get the plan amended. As far as the last part of this argument is concerned, I fully agree with the learned Counsel for the tenants petitioners that it would not be easy to get the sanctioned plan amended. In any case, it was not at all proper for the Appellate Court to direct the landlady to get the sanctioned plan amended. Learned Counsel for the landlady also stated that it would be very difficult to get the plan amended and it is quite possible that the amendment suggested by Appellate Court might be refused by the Allahabad Development Authority. 4. As learned Counsel for the tenants petitioners stated that tenants were not agreeable to take the shops directed to be handed over to them by the landlady, hence this point need not be pursued further. 5. Bona fide need of the landlady found by both the Courts below has not seriously been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Even otherwise on merits, I do not find any such error in the findings of bona fide need concurrently recorded by both the Courts below which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. Learned Counsel for the landlady respondent has vehemently argued that three alternative offers, all extremely lucrative, were given to the tenants, which they contemptuously rejected, hence question of comparative hardship shall be decided against the tenants. 6. Learned Counsel for the landlady respondent has vehemently argued that three alternative offers, all extremely lucrative, were given to the tenants, which they contemptuously rejected, hence question of comparative hardship shall be decided against the tenants. As against the rent of less than Rs. 1,000/- per month, landlady offered to purchase a shop on Rs. 6 lacs to each tenant still both the tenants refused the said offer. In this regard, learned Counsel for the landlady has cited the Supreme Court authority reported in Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan and others, 2007 (4) SCC 465 . 7. The first offer was contained in the affidavit of husband of the landlady dated 15.2.2001 filed before the Prescribed Authority alongwith application, which are Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It may be mentioned that the area of each shop is 18 feet x 42 feet, i.e. 756 sq. feet or 84 sq. yard each. In the affidavit dated 15.2.2001, it was stated that husband of the landlady had recently constructed a multi storied building at 46-A/1, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Allahabad and in the said complex a shop of 3 meter x 5.5 meter on the ground floor to each of the two tenants without any premium on legal rent and with the applicability of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was offered. The area of each offered shop was 16.5 sq. meters (about 20 sq. yard), i.e. 1/4 area of each tenanted shop. The offer was spurned by the tenants. In Para-21 of the affidavit of tenant, P.D. Agarwal dated 19.7.2006, Annexure 16-A to the writ petition, it was stated that the said offer was mala fide, hence rejected by the tenants and the portions of the said complex were let out by the landlady on monthly rent of Rs. 60,000/- per month and onwards to different tenants. In the objections (24-B) of the tenant against the offer of landlady to give on rent the shops at 46-A/1, Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, Allahabad, tenants stated that the area of the shop offered was inadequate and it was also stated that at the time of offer, construction was not complete and as only one months time was given to accept the offer and the same had expired. Tenants admitted that the offered shops were situate in the same market in which disputed shops were situate. Tenants admitted that the offered shops were situate in the same market in which disputed shops were situate. The tenants did not state that they were ready to accept the said shop after their completion. Prescribed Authority also found that the two shops offered to the tenants alongwith another shop had been let out by the landlords for Rs. 37,000/- per month rent, hence the rent of the two shops would have been Rs. 24,000/- in total (Rs.12,000/- each). 8. The second offer was regarding purchase of two shops in Sangam Palace, Civil Lines, Allahabad. 9. On enquiry from the Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners after consulting their clients stated that they were ready to take two shops of sufficient dimension in the proposed complex to be constructed on the site of the shops in dispute. The area which they demanded was about 500 sq. feet in the hall admeasuring 21 feet x 55.5 feet shown in the proposed map supplied to the Court during arguments. Tenants wanted about 3/4 portion of the said hall. On enquiry from the Court, they offered Rs. 3,000/- per month rent each. The landlady through her Counsel stated that her apple cart would be upset, if the Hall or any portion thereof was given to the tenants. 10. In 2001-2002, a shop of an area of about 20 sq. yard was let out by the landlady for Rs. 12,000/- per month. In 2007, tenants are offering 1/4 of the said amount for a shop three times bigger than the said shop.The ratio comes to 1 : 12. If double escalation during five years is reckoned then ratio will be 1 : 25. 11. Rejecting repeatedly offers of the landlady clearly proves that the current/ rental value of the shops in dispute is about thousand times more than the rent which the tenants are paying, hence they conveniently spurned all the offers made by the landlady. This also clearly proves that the tenants must be earning very good amount from business carried out from the shops in dispute, hence they are capable of purchasing a suitable shop in a suitable area (even in the market in question) or at least capable of taking on very good rent another shop. They did not make any efforts in that direction rather they went on rejecting offer after offer made by the landlady. They did not make any efforts in that direction rather they went on rejecting offer after offer made by the landlady. This clearly proves that balance of hardship was heavily tilted against him. (vide B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, (A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2713). 12. Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 770 , Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal" has held that need for extending business, even in other cities, is bona fide. In this regard, reference may also be made to AIR 2006 SC 1930 , S. Venugopal v. A. Karruppusami wherein it has been held that if at the place of tenanted premises, which is single-storeyed building in commercial locality, landlord wishes to construct multi-storeyed building to fetch higher rent and also serve his business need, that requirement is quite bona fide, particularly when plan has been approved by the competent authority and finance is available with the landlord. Paragraphs 7 and 10 of the said authority are quoted below : "7. In the instant case, it is obvious that the locality in which the premises in question is located has developed into a commercial locality. The building needed by the landlord is a single storey building, whereas a large number of multi-storeyed buildings. 10. In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single storey structure and to construct a multi-storeyed building which may fetch him higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bona fide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs. One and a half lakh of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs." 13. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs. One and a half lakh of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs." 13. Accordingly, question of comparative hardship was rightly decided against the tenants as firstly they refused three excellent offers by the landlords and secondly they did not make any efforts to purchase or taken on good rent another shop. 14. As the direction of the Appellate Court to give two new shops in the proposed multi-storeyed complex to the tenants has outrightly been condemned by the tenants, hence operative portion of the Appellate Court judgment is modified and substituted by simple order of dismissal of appeal. Writ petition is dismissed. 15. Tenants petitioners/proforma respondents are granted four months time to vacate provided that within one month, they file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of four months they will willingly vacate and handover the possession of both the shops to the landlady. 16. For this period of four months, which has been granted to both the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are directed to deposit Rs. 1 lac each (at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation before Prescribed Authority within one month for immediate payment to landlady. This amount is being fixed for the reason that the shops, which were offered to the tenants, have been let out for about Rs. 12,000/- per month each and the area of each of the said shops was less than one fourth than the area of each disputed shop. 17. In case within one month undertaking is not filed or Rs. 1 lac by each of the two tenants is not deposited then since after one month till actual vacation, both the tenants shall be liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month each. Similarly if after filing the undertaking and depositing Rs. 1 lac each, the shops are not vacated on the expiry of four months, then since after four months till actual vacation tenants shall be liable to pay rent/damages to the landlady @ Rs. 50,000/- per month each. ————