S. U. KHAN, J. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned Counsel for landlord who has appeared through caveat. 2. This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord- respondent on the ground of bonafide 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. 13 of 1995. Prescribed Authority/a. C. J. M. Court No. 3, Allahabad allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 31. 3. 2003. Against the said judgment and order tenant-petitioner filed R. C. Appeal No. 21 of 2003 which has been dismissed on 7. 5. 2008 by A. D. J. Court No. 14, Allahabad hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 100/- per month. Landlord stated that he was not doing any service or job and he wanted to start a business of General Merchandise from the shop in dispute. Both the Courts be low found that landlord was not doing any job or service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued only two points. One is that earlier a shop in tenancy occupation of one Radha Devi was got vacated, hence landlord could do busi ness in the said shop. The Courts below held that the said shop was got va cated through release application filed on the ground of bona fide need for res idential accommodation. Landlord-respondent and his two married brothers are having grown up children so need for additional residential accommodation was set up which was found proved. The other argument is that there was an other shop in tenancy occupation of one Jalil which was also got vacated through release application under section 21 of the Act. In the said release ap plication it was stated that Subodh Kumar Jain, brother of landlord-respondent needed the said shop for expansion of his business. Said need was found proved and shop was released. 4. Accordingly the other two shops which were initially in occupation of Radha Devi and Jalil were got vacated through release applications for spe cific purposes. The Courts below found that those two shops were being used for the purposes for which they were got vacated. 5. Said need was found proved and shop was released. 4. Accordingly the other two shops which were initially in occupation of Radha Devi and Jalil were got vacated through release applications for spe cific purposes. The Courts below found that those two shops were being used for the purposes for which they were got vacated. 5. In respect of comparative hardships the Courts below held that the tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation and that tenant was admittedly doing only cutting job on freelance basis. Tenants case was that several other tailors gave him the clothes for cutting and he returned them after doing the needful. The Courts below held that such job could be done even at the residence of the tenant. 6. In any case tenant did not show that he made any effort to search al ternative accommodation. 7. Accordingly, in my opinion both the Courts below rightly decided the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the land lord. Accordingly, I do not find any merit hence writ petition is dismissed. 8. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that: 1. With in one month from today petitioner-tenant files an undertak ing before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that an or before the ex piry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and han dover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent; 2. For this purpose of six months, which has been granted to the ten ant-petitioner 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 landlord-respondent. 9. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-peti tioner 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 deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1, 200/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vaca tion. 10. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3, 000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1, 200/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vaca tion. 10. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3, 000/- 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. 1, 200/-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 peti tion for violation of undertaking and execution application under section 23 of the Act. Writ Petition Dismissed. .