JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a landlord’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant-respondent No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act in the form of case No. 2 of 1980. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 40/- per month. Landlord has died and substituted by his legal representatives. 3. Prescribed Authority/Munsif City, Azamgarh through judgment and order dated 26.5.1982 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order, landlord-petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1982. A.D.J./Special Judge (E.C. Act), Azamgarh dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 22.4.1983, hence this writ petition. 4. I dismissed this writ petition on 5.1.2004 without looking into the merits of the case on the ground that even if arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner were accepted, matter would require remanded as release application had been dismissed by both the Courts below. However, while dismissing the writ petition, liberty was granted to the landlord-petitioner to file fresh release application. Against judgment and order dated 5.1.2004, appeal was filed before Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 2480 of 2007). Supreme Court allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 14.5.2007 set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the matter finally. Supreme Court also directed that subsequent events shall also be considered by the High Court, if necessary. The judgment of Supreme Court is reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3250, Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan. 5. It may be mentioned that even before the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case, I had changed my view held that even if release application of the landlord has been dismissed by both the courts below still in suitable cases, High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can grant final relief to the landlord vide Mohd. Arif v. A.D.J., 2005(2) A.R.C. 793 . 6. Landlord stated in the release application that he was doing business from a tenanted shop and he had three sons whose names were Ashthbhuji, Sangam Lal and Kameshwar and one of his sons was doing business from a shop owned by the landlord. Arif v. A.D.J., 2005(2) A.R.C. 793 . 6. Landlord stated in the release application that he was doing business from a tenanted shop and he had three sons whose names were Ashthbhuji, Sangam Lal and Kameshwar and one of his sons was doing business from a shop owned by the landlord. Both the Courts below held that all the three sons were doing business from the shop owned by the landlord jointly, hence need was not bona fide. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on 2.1.2008, it has been stated in Para 7 onward that Kameshwar Prasad, one of the sons of the landlord has shifted to Varanasi and is practising there as Chartered Accountant and has got two residential buildings in Varanasi (Property in dispute is situated in Azamgarh). In Para 9 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that Sangam Lal second son of landlord-petitioner is doing business of Kirana Merchant (general merchant) under the name and style of M/s Ashthbhuji Prasad Barnwal in his own shop situated adjacent to the shop in question and the said shop was in existence since before the institution of the release application. 8. Thereafter in Para 15, details of properties owned by petitioner and his sons has been given. Under the heading business of petitioner’s son (Ashthbhuji)’, it is mentioned that at present he is doing business of Kirana in the shop adjacent to the shop in question under the name and style of M/s Ashthbhuji Prasad Barnwal. 9. A perusal of Para 9 and Para 15 of the counter affidavit makes it quite clear that according to the tenant himself there is only one shop owned by the landlord in which two of his sons are doing business i.e. Sangam Lal and Ashthbhuji Prasad. Supreme Court in the case of Sushila v. llnd Addl. District Judge, Banda, AIR 2003 SC 780 and Mustaquin & R.K. Govil has held that very adult family member of the landlord has got right to start his independent separate business and no landlord or adult member of the family of the landlord can be compelled to participate in the joint business of family business. 10. Learned Counsel for landlord-petitioner has stated that the shop which was in tenancy occupation of the landlord was got vacated by its landlord. This fact is not admitted by the learned counsel for tenant-respondent. 10. Learned Counsel for landlord-petitioner has stated that the shop which was in tenancy occupation of the landlord was got vacated by its landlord. This fact is not admitted by the learned counsel for tenant-respondent. Be that as it may, Supreme Court in the case of G.K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 656 has held that a tenanted accommodation in possession of the landlord cannot be taken into consideration while deciding his release application. 11. In any case, Ashthbhuji and Sangam Lal are having only one shop, hence need for one additional shop is more that proved. 12. As far as comparative hardship is concerned, landlord asserted and tenant admitted that he and his sons had got following additional business : 1. Atta Chakki 2. Two of his sons had started Cloth and Kirana business in another shop. 13. Accordingly, balance of hardship squarely lay in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search another accommodation after filing of the release application. This omission further titled balance of hardship against the tenant vide B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, AIR 2003 S.C. 2713 . 14. Accordingly, in my opinion, bona fide need of landlord was/is fully proved. Balance of hardship also lies in his favour. Findings of both the courts below on both the points are patently erroneous in lay and liable to be quashed. 15. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned judgment and orders are set aside. Release application of landlord-petitioner is allowed. 16. Tenants-respondents are 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. 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. 17. 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. 17. 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. 2000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual eviction. 18. 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. 2000/- per month since after six months till actual eviction. 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. ————