JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent caveator. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments by which release application of the respondent landlord has been allowed by both the courts below. 3. The respondent landlord preferred an application under Section 21 (1(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the disputed shop inter alia with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs.50/- per month apart from water charges which is situated on the ground floor of the building wherein the landlords were residing in the first floor and he was? carrying on a flour mill? and he has become very old and cannot run any shop and all his sons are well employed and she needs the said shop to settle her son Pradeep Kumar who was dealing with the glasses and glassware but due to paucity of accommodation, he has not been able to settle his business properly. During pendency of the application, Pradeep Kumar died and thereafter the application was amended and the need of his wife was substituted. The petitioner tenant contested the said application inter alia on the ground that he is now operating a general merchant shop from the disputed accommodation and he could not shift the shop from the residential accommodation and except the present shop, there was no other source of livelihood of the petitioner. 4. After the parties has led their evidence, both the courts below have allowed the release application. 5. It is urged that the offer given by the petitioner for division of the shop was wrongly rejected by the court below and he is still prepared? to offer a portion of premises for the need of the respondent landlord. 6. This specific argument and offer was also made before the court below which considering the entire facts has returned a finding that the need of the landlord was for the entire premises and part release would not meet the requirement and in fact the nature of the business which the petitioner was carrying, could be easily transferred to his house which was in the same locality. This finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse. 7. No other point has been urged. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse. 7. No other point has been urged. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 9. After the petition had been dismissed, the petitioner through his counsel has given an undertaking that he would vacate the disputed premises and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent landlord without creating any third party rights, if a reasonable time is granted and he would also deposit the rent thereof. 10. Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed premises on or before 23rd of July 2010, provided he deposits the rent upto 23rd of July 2010 within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession without creating any third party rights to the respondent landlord on or before 23rd of July 2010. In default of payment of rent, the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith.