JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J. Heard Sri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.R.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders passed by prescribed authority dated 23.2.2008 and order dated 11.9.2009 passed by Additional District Judge,Court no.5, Jhansi in Rent Appeal No.8 of 2008 (Smt.Ganeshi Bai Vs. Surendra Kumar Jain). 3. It appears that respondent-landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No.13 of 1972 to set up himself in the business in premises in dispute. Written statement was filed by tenants-petitioners denying the allegation made in release application that shop in question is only 4=6ft in which landlord cannot do Kirana business as alleged. Further it has also been stated that landlord-respondent is having many shops available in the vacant stage. It was further alleged in written statement that during pendency of application, shop has been got vacated and shutter has been installed and that is being used as shop. A spot inspection was also made and from perusal of Commissioner's report, it is clear that it is a shop in which two shutters are there and there is no window or door and it is not being used as residential purposes but is being used as commercial purposes. Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence on record has recorded a finding that need of landlord is genuine and bonafide and no alternative accommodation is available to respondent-landlord, then vide its order dated 23.2.2008 allowed the application. Petitioner filed an appeal. Appellate Court too has dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that from perusal of release application filed by landlord a specific averment has been made that he wants to start his own business of Kirana in the said shop but subsequently, without amending the application has stated that shop is also required for his son. This is not permissible becuase unless and until application is amended and evidence is pleaded it cannot be accepted by authorities below. Further submission has been made that in the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, respondent-landlord has clearly stated that as two sons are involved in Kirana business but subsequently without amending the application need of one son has been established. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. 6. Further submission has been made that in the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, respondent-landlord has clearly stated that as two sons are involved in Kirana business but subsequently without amending the application need of one son has been established. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. 6. As regards the submission made by petitioner that there is an alternative accommodation to petitioners in which shutters have been installed which clearly goes to show that business is being done because in the residential portion normally shutters are not being installed but from perusal of amin's report it is clear that no business activities are being done in the said accommodation and it is being used as residential accommodation. The Amin's report further states that no furniture has been found there at the time of inspection. Only on the ground that shutter has been installed, there cannot be any presumption that it is being used as shop. Further finding has been recorded that from that place a staircase is there. Therefore, there cannot be any presumption that it is a shop. 7. In my opinion claim to this effect by petitioners that there is an alternative accommodation available to respondent, therefore, he can do his business in the said accommodation, is not correct. 8. As regards, the other submission made by petitioners is that without amending the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, need of one of the son has been considered by the court. According to Court, an application was filed to establish himself in business but a specific averment in the application has been made subsequently that two brothers are doing business jointly and there are some differences, in such situation, one of the son will join landlord in the business. In my opinion, findings recorded by both the authorities are based on evidence after due consideration and pleading of the parties. A specific finding after due consideration is there that during the period no efforts have been made by petitioners to get an alternative accommodation. In my opinion, findings recorded by both the authorities are based on evidence after due consideration and pleading of the parties. A specific finding after due consideration is there that during the period no efforts have been made by petitioners to get an alternative accommodation. In view of various judgments of this Court it is settled in law that, in case, bonafide need has been compared properly between the landlord and tenant, it will be treated to be a finding of fact and cannot be interfered by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion, both the authorities have held that need of landlord is more genuine and in case, shop in question is not released in favour of landlord, landlord will suffer more hardship than petitioners. 9. In view of aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. 10. At the last, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the said premises. It is provided that in case, petitioners move an application within three weeks supported by an affidavit in the shape of undertaking before the court below specifically mentioned therein that immediately after expiry of period of six months from today, they will vacate the said premises and will handover peaceful possession to respondent-landlord without inducting any third person, then in that case, court below after due satisfaction will grant six months time from today. It is also made clear that petitioners- tenant will pay the rent of six months from today to respondent landlord before vacation of the said premises.