S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is landlords writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceed ings initiated by them against tenant respondent No. 2 Munna Lal on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P. A. Case No. 5 of 1983. Prescribed Authority/munsif, Etah allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 21. 2. 1987. Against the said judgment and order tenant-respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1987. A. D. J. , Etah allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 30. 5. 1992, set aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority and rejected the release application of the landlords petitioners, hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 65/- per month. Landlords purchased the property on 16. 9. 1979. It was stated in the release ap plication that landlord applicant No. 1 Lal Bahadur was doing the business of goldsmith from his house and landlord applicant No. 2 Vijai Bahadur was not doing any business and was without any job. It was further stated that father of landlords was tenant in a shop from where he was carrying the business of gold smith. Landlord applicant No. 2, Vijai Bahadur was aged about 22 years and married at the time of filing release application. It was also stated that tenant was having a shop in Mandi, Jawaharganj, Jalesar. 4. Lower Appellate Court held that Vijai Bahadur landlord applicant No. 2 was doing business of goldsmith from a shop in Jawaharganj, Jalesar which was owned by uncle (Tau) of Vijai Bahadur. Even though the said fact was denied by the landlords still the Lower Appellate Court on the basis of photographs found the said fact to be proved. 5. Lower Appellate Court also held that mother of the landlords had purchased a big shop and thereafter converted the same into two shops and in one shop one of the landlords applicants, i. e. , Lal Bahadur was doing business hence the other landlord Vijai Bahadur could do business from other shop. Landlords asserted that the said shop was in possession of Ram Murty. Landlords asserted that the said shop was in possession of Ram Murty. Lower Appellate Court also found that a house was available with the landlords on the ground floor from where Vijai Bahadur could do business. 6. In respect of comparative hardship, Lower Appellate Court held that in the commercial accommodation owned by the tenant and his brothers, his brothers were doing business. 7. Even if it is assumed that Vijai Bahadur was doing business as licensee or tenant in the shop of his uncle, it is no ground to reject the release application vide G. K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das, AIR 2000 SC 656 =2000 SCFBRC 5. and Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. M/s. Traders and Agencies AIR 1997 SC 59=1996 SCFBRC 477. 8. No landlord can be compelled to do business from his residential house. 9. As far as shop purchased by the mother of the landlords is concerned, landlords could not be compelled to do business in the said shop as by maximum, they could use the said shop only as licensees. Moreover, it was found that landlord applicant No. 1 Lal Bahadur was using the said shop (whether it was one shop or converted into two shops for the sake of convenience ). 10. In the release application, it was stated that Lal Bahadur was doing business from his residential house. If Lal Bahadur landlord applicant No. 1 started doing business from the shop purchased by his mother, it could not have any affect upon the merit of the case as in the release application need set up was for Vijai Bahadur landlord applicant No. 2. Moreover, father of the ap plicants was doing business from a tenanted shop. Accordingly, he also de served personal shop. In this manner, father and both the sons required three shops. 11. Accordingly, I hold that finding of the Lower Appellate Court that landlords failed to prove bona fide need are erroneous in law. 12. As far as comparative hardship is concerned, tenant is owner in posses sion of commercial accommodation alongwith his brother. Moreover, he did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation after fil ing of release application, hence question of hardship had to be decided against him vide Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada 2006 (63) ALR 438 (SC ). 13. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Moreover, he did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation after fil ing of release application, hence question of hardship had to be decided against him vide Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada 2006 (63) ALR 438 (SC ). 13. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside. Judgment and order passed by the pre -. scribed authority is restored. Tenant-respondent is granted six months time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months tenant will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords-petitioners; 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-respondent No. 2 to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 3, 000/- (at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month) as rent/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 landlords-petitioners. 14. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-re spondent No. 2 shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3, 000/- are not de posited within one month then tenant-respondent No. 2 shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1, 000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 15. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3, 000/- the shops in dispute are not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1, 000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and initiate execution proceedings under section 23 of the Act. Writ Petition Allowed. .