S. U. KHAN, J. Heard Sri P. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Madan Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the tenant respondent, who appeared through caveat. 2. This is tenants wit petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent 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. 141 of 1999. Prescribed Authority/additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 13, Allahabad allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 19. 11. 2005. Against the said judgment and order tenants petitioners filed R. C. Appeal No. 220 of 2005, A. D. J. , Court No. 2, Allahabad, through judgment and order dated 4. 8. 2008, dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute is commercial in nature and is situate on ground floor rent of which is Rs. 100/- per month. It contains five portions. Map of the accommodation in dispute is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Depth is about 50 feet. Frontage is varying. Frontage of the first portion is 16. 25 feet, of the next portion 19. 5 feet, of the next 14. 25 feet and of the last portion 11. 75 feet. Front portion is mentioned as Gaddy, next two portions as go-downs, thereafter courtyard and verandah and in the end also there is a verandah. Initially tenants appeal was allowed on 5. 9. 2007. However, that order was set aside in Writ Petition No. 51223 of 2007, which was allowed on 4. 12. 2007 and matter was re manded to the Appellate Court. Thereafter, the said order was modified on 29. 2. 2008 and it was directed that appeal should be heard and decided on all the points. Thereafter, Appellate Court dismissed the appeal through judg ment and order dated 4. 8. 2008. 4. Landlord stated that he had passed B. Com. and wanted to start busi ness of chuni and bhusa (pulse split and chaff/cut-straw ). Tenant are carrying on business of food-grains from the shop in dispute. Landlord resides on the first floor along with his father and their family members. 8. 2008. 4. Landlord stated that he had passed B. Com. and wanted to start busi ness of chuni and bhusa (pulse split and chaff/cut-straw ). Tenant are carrying on business of food-grains from the shop in dispute. Landlord resides on the first floor along with his father and their family members. It was also stated that tenants were quite rich and their sons had several shops in which the business carried out from the accommodation in dispute could be shifted. Details of the properties available with the tenants and their sons were also given by the landlord. 5. Tenants denied the allegations of the release application. Tenants as serted that Dukhi Lal grand- father of the landlord was originally landlord of the accommodation in dispute and Dukhi Lal had several houses and one of the said houses, i. e. , House No. 430, Muthiganj, Allahabad, was in the form of big mandi containing 25-30 shops and several good-owns and some of the shops and go-downs were let out after filing of the release application. It was also pleaded that family members of Dukhi Lal had never done any business and they possessed several immovable properties from which they were earning lacs of rupees per year as rental income. In respect of the properties asserted by the landlord to belong to the tenants, the tenants stated that most of the said properties were houses and some were situate in narrow lanes. 6. It is not disputed that grand-father of landlord had died before filing of the release application. Tenants also pleaded that landlords grand-father had executed a will on 15. 12. 1983 giving different properties to his different sons and grandsons. However after the death of Dukhi Lal, his sons and grand sons readjusted the properties among themselves. During pendency of appeal, landlord filed copies of some sale deeds executed by the tenants in respect of their properties. Jagdish Chandra tenant petitioner No. 2 stated that in some of the properties he had only one third shares and they were not suitable for commercial purpose. All the sale deeds relates to house No. 398 having total area of about 230 square yards. Photographs of the said properties were also part of the sale deeds. Jagdish Chandra tenant petitioner No. 2 stated that in some of the properties he had only one third shares and they were not suitable for commercial purpose. All the sale deeds relates to house No. 398 having total area of about 230 square yards. Photographs of the said properties were also part of the sale deeds. Lower Appellate Court held that from perusal of the same, it appeared that said property was situate on 12 feet wide road and contained open space in front, which was suitable for doing wholesale grain business. The tenants had filed documents showing that their annual turnover was about Rs. 4 crores. Tenants had also pleaded that adjoining shops also belonged to the landlord and he could use the same. However, all those shops were already let out to the tenants. 7. Tenants could not point out that landlord either was doing any business or employed anywhere. No vacant shop was found in possession of the land lord. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the findings on bona fide need recorded by both the Courts below. 8. In respect of the comparative hardship, the Appellate Court held that during pendency of proceedings, i. e. , house No. 398, New Basti, Kydganj, Allahabad which was quite suitable for the business of the tenants was sold by the tenants. Courts below also held that according to the own case of the ten ants, they were doing business on a very good scale and their annual turnover was about Rs. 4 crores, hence they could very easily arrange the alternative ac commodation but they did not make any efforts in that direction. Accordingly, in the finding of comparative hardship, also I do not find any error. 9. In the end, learned Counsel for the tenants petitioners vehemently ar gued that looking to the size and the position of the property in dispute and in view of the business proposed by the landlord to be started from the accommo dation in dispute, it was a very good case for part release. However. I am not inclined to accept this contention. Learned Counsel for the tenants petitioners stated that from Gaddy and godown situate immediately behind that or in any case only front Gaddy could be left in occupation of the tenants. However, firstly, for commercial use the main attraction is of the front portion. However. I am not inclined to accept this contention. Learned Counsel for the tenants petitioners stated that from Gaddy and godown situate immediately behind that or in any case only front Gaddy could be left in occupation of the tenants. However, firstly, for commercial use the main attraction is of the front portion. Secondly, tenant petitioner No. 2 has himself sold the property during pendency of ap peal which was quite suitable for business. 10. Thirdly, tenants petitioners are very wealthy, hence they can easily arrange the alternative accommodation. Accordingly, I am not inclined to ac cept the plea of part release. 11. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today petitioners 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 landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 6,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- 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. 13. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants peti tioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and tenants-petitioners shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 14. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 6,000/- 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. 2,000/-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 peti tion for violation of undertaking and execution application under section 23 of the Act. Petition Dismissed. .