JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 2, Shiv Swarup Sharma, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, against Pooran Chand. In the application Jagdish Swarup Sharma and Shanti Swarup Sharma were impleaded as pro forma opposite parties. (They are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this writ petition). It was alleged in the release application that Shiv Swarup Sharma and Shanti Swarup Sharma were joint owners of the house in dispute, however, the applicant and they had partitioned their properties among themselves and house in dispute had fallen in the share of the applicant Shiv Swarup Sharma. 3. Release application was registered as case No. 12 of 1978 and was dismissed by Prescribed Authority/Munsif Khurja through judgment and order dated 5.9.1983. Against the said judgment and order, landlord-respondent No. 2 filed R.C. Appeal No. 3 of 1983. 1st A.D.J. Bulandshahr allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 7.2.1990 set aside the order of Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. The said order is challenged through this writ petition. 4. Property in dispute consists of one room, one Kothri/Baithak and other amenities, and is situate on ground floor. Rent is Rs. 9/- per month. It was alleged in the release application that in partition ground floor had fallen in the share of the applicant and first and second floors had fallen in the share of his brothers Jagdish Swarup and Shanti Swarup. Tenanted accommodation is part of ground floor accommodation which was allotted to the applicant/respondent No. 2 in partition. Remaining portion of the ground floor is in possession of landlord respondent No. 2. It was alleged that the time of filing of the release application, landlord’s family consisted of himself, his wife and three children and his mother and the portion in his possession was quite small and insufficient for his need. It was also pleaded that the tenant had constructed a big house about a year before filing of release application in another Mohalla of the same city and one more house was gifted to him by Smt. Phool Kunwar on 23.2.1972. 5. It was also pleaded that the tenant had constructed a big house about a year before filing of release application in another Mohalla of the same city and one more house was gifted to him by Smt. Phool Kunwar on 23.2.1972. 5. The tenant asserted that the other two brothers of landlord-applicant were residing at Bulandshahr and Delhi and had constructed their own residential houses in those cities and they did not require first and second floor accommodations and entire triple storied house except tenanted portion was in occupation of landlord applicant. Tenant admitted that he had purchased house in 1965 in the same city. However, it was contended that the same was constructed before 15 or 16 years of letting and was in a dilapidated condition and only one room had been newly built and in the said house tenant’s brother and mother were residing and tenant was also keeping his cows and calfs there. It was also admitted that Smt. Phoolwati gifted a house to the tenant in 1972. However, it was contended that the same was also small and in dilapidated condition. 6. Prescribed Authority held that no partition as alleged by applicant landlord had taken place and entire house was in possession of applicant-landlord. It was also held that Explanation (i) to Section 21(1) of the Act was not attracted. By virtue of said explanation if tenant has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state a residential building in the same city, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained. The Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 2975 , Sudha Agrawal v. Xth Addl. Dist. Judge and others, has held that the said explanation is at par with Section 16 of the Act where tenant cannot dispute the bona fide need of the landlord. However, landlord has to prove his bona fide need but without any objection or evidence on the part of the tenant. 7. Landlord had asserted that the house purchased by the tenant was constructed over an area of land measuring 120 sq. yd not 50-60 sq.yd. as alleged by the tenant. In that regard landlord filed sanctioned map passed in the year 1978 i.e. after commencement of the Act which was in respect of double storied construction. 8. 7. Landlord had asserted that the house purchased by the tenant was constructed over an area of land measuring 120 sq. yd not 50-60 sq.yd. as alleged by the tenant. In that regard landlord filed sanctioned map passed in the year 1978 i.e. after commencement of the Act which was in respect of double storied construction. 8. A lot of arguments were raised before the Courts below as well as this Court on behalf of the tenant challenging the partition in between landlord applicant and his two brothers. In my opinion even if partition is ignored it will not make much difference. Even a co-landlord alone is entitled to file release application as held by Full Bench authority of this Court in Gopal Das v. A.D.J., 1987 (1) ARC 281 (FB). 9. Moreover partition had been given effect to in the Municipal record in May/September, 1977. In the rent receipts after 1.4.1977 also the name of applicant landlord was shown as the sole landlord while prior to that rent receipts contained the names of all the three brothers. Rent receipts were filed by tenant himself. 10. Tenant had also pleaded that a portion in occupation of another tenant Girdharilal was vacated by Girdharilal in pursuance of decree of eviction. 11. Under Section 16 of the Act the burden upon the landlord to prove his bona fide need is lighter than his burden to prove need in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. If tenant has constructed his own house then explanation (i) to Section 21(1) of the Act is attracted and release application under Section 21 of the Act is at par with release application under Section 16 of the Act as held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority. 12. Accordingly, in my opinion, the bona fide need of the landlord was fully proved. 13. If aforesaid explanation is attracted, comparative hardships are not to be compared. In any case, in the instant case tenant had acquired two houses and had made a lot of construction at least in one of them after getting the map passed in the year 1978. Accordingly absolutely no hardship will be faced by the tenant in case of eviction. Rent of Rs. 9/- per month is rather ridiculous and appears to be the main attraction for the tenant to continue in possession. 14. Accordingly absolutely no hardship will be faced by the tenant in case of eviction. Rent of Rs. 9/- per month is rather ridiculous and appears to be the main attraction for the tenant to continue in possession. 14. Accordingly I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order of the lower appellate Court. Writ petition is dismissed. 15. Tenants-petitioners are granted six months’ time to vacate provided that : 1. Within one month from today tenants file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlors-respondents. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioner to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 4,500/- (at the rate of Rs. 750/- 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-respondents. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions, tenants-petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 4500/- are not deposited within one month then tenants-petitioners shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 4500/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of nine months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1500/- 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. ————