JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is landlord’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent No. 2 Mohan 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. 124 of 1994. Prescribed Authority/ J.S.C.C., Meerut allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 27.4.1996. Against the said judgment and order, tenant respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Appeal (P.A.) No. 177 of 1976. A.D.J./Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Meerut through judgment and order dated 14.5.1997 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and rejected the release application of petitioner landlord, hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Meerut, rent of which is Rs. 75.60 per month. 4. In the release application, it was stated that landlord had three adult sons, Pradeep Kumar (Chartered Account), living at J : Delhi, Atul Kumar, carrying iron business from a shop at Mawana and third son Rajeev Kumar was also helping his elder brother Atul Kumar. It was stated that Rajeev Kumar wanted to open cloth business in Merrut from the shop in dispute. Landlord resides at Mawana, which is a town of Meerut. 5. The tenant pleaded that Rajeev Kumar was a partner in a firm M/s Delhi Iron Wires and both brothers, i.e. Atul Kumar and Rajeev Kumar, were doing joint business from the shop at Mawana and Rajeev Kumar also helped his father in cloth business. It was further pleaded that landlord possessed several shops at town Mawana, hence he could settle Rajeev Kumar in any one of those shops. 6. Lower appellate Court allowed the appeal on the ground that landlord had four shops at Mawana and there was no explanation why he could not settle his son Rajeev Kumar in business from any of those four shops. The finding of the lower appellate Court in this regard is quoted below : “In the present case, it is admitted to the landlord that he has four shops at Mawana itself. There is no evidence on record to explain why the landlord did not chose any one of those shops. The finding of the lower appellate Court in this regard is quoted below : “In the present case, it is admitted to the landlord that he has four shops at Mawana itself. There is no evidence on record to explain why the landlord did not chose any one of those shops. The mere fact that these shops were in the tenancy of others does not help the case of the landlord because the disputed shop is also under tenancy.” 7. This finding of the lower appellate Court is utterly erroneous in law. Firstly, out of several tenanted accommodations landlord is at complete liberty to file release application against tenant of any accommodation. Secondly, Meerut is a city and quite a big one, hence obviously business at Meerut would yield profits several times more than business at Mawana, which is only a town of Meerut. Another sentence of appellate Court’s judgment also requires quoting as it is extremely interesting : “It is always very difficult for an alien to do good work in unknown habitat.” 8. No one can be alien in his own country, while the lower appellate Court has made the son of the landlord alien in his own District. The view taken by the lower appellate Court almost borders on absurdity. 9. As far as comparative hardship is concerned, tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation, hence Prescribed Authority rightly decided the question of hardship against the tenant. In view of Supreme Court authority reported in B.C. Bhutada v. G.R.Mundada (A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2713) question of hardship has to be decided against tenant if he does not make any effort to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order and judgment passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. Judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority is restored. Tenant-respondent is granted six months time to vacate provided that : 1. Within one month from today respondent tenant files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-petitioner. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-respondent to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-respondent to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1000/- 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 landlord-petitioner. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-respondent shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 6000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2500/- 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 execution application under Section 23 of the Act. ————