JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent-caveator. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 11.5.2009 and 25.1.2010 by which the release application of the respondent-landlord has been allowed by both the courts below. 3. The respondents- landlords filed an application for release against the petitioner-tenant inter-alia with the allegation that they had purchased the disputed shop vide registered sale deed dated 10.2.2003 wherein the petitioner was carrying on his business as a tenant at Rs.50/- per month. It was further alleged that they had studied upto class VI and despite efforts, were unable to find any service and as they know the work of goldsmith and therefore they want to start their business of goldsmith in the disputed premises as they had no other shop to start their business. It was further alleged that the tenant is an old man who generally keeps the shop locked. 4. The petitioner-tenant contested the application, inter-alia with the allegation that both the landlords were gainfully employed in money lending business and the situation of the shop was such that the business of goldsmith cannot be run from it and therefore neither the need was genuine nor pressing and in fact the disputed shop was the only livelihood of his family members and therefore in case he is evicted, he would suffer greater hardship. 5. After considering the evidence on record, both the courts below allowed the release application but the appellate court awarded compensation of Rs.one lac to the petitioner-tenant. 6. It is urged that both the sons of the landlords were gainfully employed and therefore they did not have any bonafide and genuine need. It is also urged that the area where the shop is situated, is not fit for opening a goldsmith shop. 7. Both the courts below considering the evidence on record, have recorded categorical finding that the only shop available to them was a tenanted shop where the father of the landlords was carrying on his own goldsmith business and the landlords genuinely needed the disputed shop as they had no other shop available. On the question of hardship also, the courts below have recorded a finding in favour of the landlords. On the question of hardship also, the courts below have recorded a finding in favour of the landlords. It was found that in the area where the disputed shop is situated, there are other shops where the business of goldsmith is being carried on and it further found that the tenant cannot dictate term to the landlords. All these findings are based on facts which have not been shown to be perverse or vitiated. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 9. However, the counsel for the petitioner after obtaining instruction from his client has given an undertaking that he would vacate the premises within a reasonable time fixed by the Court and would also deposit the rent thereof. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the respondents-landlords on or before 30.7.2010 and would also deposit the entire rent for the period uptil 30.7.2010 within a period of four weeks from today with the court below which shall be released in favour of the respondents-landlord. In case of default of depositing the rent, the decree shall be executed forthwith. 11. The respondents-landlords are directed to deposit a demand draft drawn in favour of the petitioner-tenant for Rs.one lac as directed by the appellate court and deposit it with the executing court on or before 9.7.2010 which shall be handed over to the petitioner-tenant.