Heard Mr Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr Ram Prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. Bereft of unnecessary facts and other details of multiple litigation between the par­ties, the facts of the case are that the dispute relates to House No. 498/21, Mohalla, Kutubpur, Daliganj, Faizabad Road, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow of which the opposite party No.2 is the landlord and the petitioners are tenants of ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.25/-. On 30.9.2003, the opposite party No.2 moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U. P. Urban Build­ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic­tion) Act [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity] for release of the ac­commodation on the ground floor compris­ing of three rooms, varandah, bathroom and a courtyard which was given on license in January, 1985 to Smt. Somvati, now de­ceased, real mother-in-law of the younger brother of opposite party No.2 in January, 1985 with a condition that she will vacate the same as soon as she will get a suitable ac­commodation. Further, it was pleaded that even after lapse of several years, Smt. Somvati had not tried to find out suitable ac­commodation despite several requests and reminders made by the opposite party No.2 and as such, a request to vacate the said ac­commodation on ground floor was made but no heed was paid by her, with the result, by the notice dated 25.6.1991, the license was terminated and she was called upon to handover the vacant and peaceful possession to the opposite party No.2, which was served upon her on 5.7.1991, but instead of vacat­ing the premises, she along with her sons, namely, the petitioners, misbehaved with the opposite party No.2, who was compelled to lodge an F.I.R. against them. In the said ap­plication, it was further pleaded that the op­posite party No.2 filed Regular Suit No. 353 of 1991 for possession and damages for use and occupation and Smt. Somvati along with the petitioners and her married daughters filed Regular Suit No. 39 of 1995 for permanent injunction and made an application for grant of ad interim order which was rejected and ultimately, the said suit was also dismissed on 29.5.2002. Owing to collusion with the staff of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, the petition­ers succeeded in getting the names of their father Prakash Chandra Verma entered in mu­nicipal records as tenant with effect from 1972. Regular Suit No. 353 of 1991 for pos­session and damages filed by the opposite party No.2 was decreed and the said order was affirmed in appeal, it has also been pleaded that the wife of the opposite party No.2 is High Blood Pressure patient and doc­tors advised her not to climb upstairs, hence ground floor of the house was in urgent need on health ground too. Next, they took a plea that the petitioners constructed their own house after purchasing a plot in auction from the Lucknow Development Authority, Luc­know through registered sale deed dated 4.1.1996 just in front of the licensed premises in dispute. The need of the opposite party No.2 is thus bona fide and genuine and the petitioners would not suffer any hardship, if the house in question is released in his favour; as they own their own house. 3. The application was hotly contested by the petitioners by filing their written state­ment admitting the opposite party No.2 to be their landlord and Smt. Somvati, mother of the petitioners was mother-in-law of the younger brother of opposite party No.2. It was also pleaded that the application filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 21 was not maintainable. Further, it was pleaded that in order to harass them, a Suit for injunction was filed. The wife of opposite party No.2 is hale and hearty and the petitioners have no other accommodation, except the premises in dis­pute. The petitioners are earning their liveli­hood with great difficulty from the hotel busi­ness. The need as set up by the opposite party No.2 is neither bona fide nor genuine, rather, it is a mere desire to evict the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute. 4. The petitioners are earning their liveli­hood with great difficulty from the hotel busi­ness. The need as set up by the opposite party No.2 is neither bona fide nor genuine, rather, it is a mere desire to evict the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute. 4. In the written statement, it was further pleaded that in 1972, the opposite party No.2 proposed Smt. Sornvati, mother of petition­ers to shift her family from Etawah to Luc­know and to do some business, as at that time, the ground floor in question was lying vacant but late Prakash Chandra Verma, her husband declined to reside in the house in dispute without paying any rent, as it was against the sentiments and customs of a Hindu which was accepted, whereupon, the house was occupied by him and he started paying rent @ Rs.25/- per month. He had converted latrine into flush by investing huge amount. In the last week of March, 1991, the opposite party No.2 occupied first floor of the house in question as he was living in his ancestral house at Babuganj, Lucknow and had dug out the roof of the rented house and planted two "Neem" trees and the height of the grown up trees is 15' and its breadth was 2' at the time of plantation. The rent was subsequently re­fused, whereupon the same is being depos­ited in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1995. The oppo­site party No. 2 is a man of means and has a very big building at Babuganj, Lucknow. The accommodation constructed by the petition­ers is of commercial nature as the commer­cial plot was purchased from Lucknow De­velopment Authority and after construction having been raised, it was let out to the ten­ants, who are carrying on their business. The need as set up by the opposite party No.2 is neither bona fide nor genuine, hence the ap­plication is liable to be dismissed. 5. After considering the material available on record, the Prescribed Authority held that the accommodation in possession of the op­posite party No.2 comprising his wife and 2 sons, a daughter, total six in number, is more than sufficient, hence the need as set up by him is neither bona fide nor genuine rather, it is a desire to evict the petitioners, thereby re­jected the application order for release vide dated 9.8.2007. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2007, the opposite party No.2 filed an appeal [Rent Appeal No. 38 of 2007], who, in turn, allowed the appeal on the ground that the wife of the opposite party No.2 is a patient of high blood pressure and further the peti­tioners have not led any evidence to show that the plot purchased by the petitioner No.1 is purely of residential or commercial in nature. 6. It has been argued by the petitioner's Counsel that the learned Appellate Court on a sheer misreading of the evidence on record held that the wife of the petitioner No.3 is a Teacher and since the pay slip has not been filed, hence an adverse inference could be drawn against him, although the petitioner No.3 is still Bachelor. Further, by citing case laws even without recording any positive find­ing about the bona fide need merely on the basis of comparative hardship of the parties that since the petitioners have not searched out an alternative accommodation, allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.2.2010. 7. Feeling aggrieved the instant writ peti­tion has been filed inter alia on the ground that the Appellate Court has failed to consider the ample evidence on record, including the report of the Amin Commissioner giving de­tails of accommodation in question and fur­ther, no specific finding has been recorded by the opposite party No.1, but merely on the basis of comparative hardship of the parties, the appeal has been allowed. It has further been submitted that the Appellate Court has failed to draw a distinction between the de­sire and the need and even without recording a positive finding of the bona fide need of the opposite party No.2 allowed the appeal and swayed away with the sole consideration that the petitioners have constructed an ac­commodation, thereby they could not object the application for release, ignoring the fact that the petitioners have constructed a com­mercial building which had already been let out, which vitiates the judgment passed. Fur­ther, the Appellate Court failed to consider the law propounded by this Court that even if the tenant had acquired an accommodation, the landlord has to prove his bona fide need, failing which the application for release could not be allowed, thereby the impugned judg­ment passed suffers from infirmities. Fur­ther, the Appellate Court failed to consider the law propounded by this Court that even if the tenant had acquired an accommodation, the landlord has to prove his bona fide need, failing which the application for release could not be allowed, thereby the impugned judg­ment passed suffers from infirmities. Further­more, the order passed by the Appellate Court is not only against the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record but also the law applicable thereto, hence the same is liable to be quashed. 8. On the death of the mother of the peti­tioners, who was suffering from Cancer, the petitioners inherited the tenancy rights. The father of the petitioners, who was also suf­fering from Cancer, expired and in the treat­ment of both parents, they spent huge amount, as a consequence, their monetary condition became so weak that they could not arrange/acquire another alternative accommodation for their residence. Further, the petitioners are depositing rent in Misc. Case No. 57 of 1995, as the opposite party No.2 declined to receive the rent. It is pertinent to mention here that pursuant to the order passed on the applica­tion made by the petitioners under Section 28 (4) of the Act, whereby the petitioners were permitted to carry out repairs, they got nec­essary repairs made in a portion of premises, i.e. restaurant, but the opposite party No.2, despite the order passed by the Court, did not permit the mason and labourers to carry out the repairs in respect of the building in ques­tion. Further, it is submitted that the rent of accommodation is Rs.25/- per month. 9. The opposite party No.2 by filing counter-affidavit has stated that he is the land­lord of premises in dispute, i.e. House No. 498/21, Kutubpur, Daliganj, Faizabad Road, Lucknow. The premises consists of ground floor and first floor. The petitioners/tenants are in occupation of the said premises on a monthly meagre rent of Rs.25/- which is being used primarily for residential purpose. The petition­ers along with their mother filed an applica­tion under Section 28 (4) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for repairs which was registered as P.A. Case No. 46 of 2002 and the opposite party No.2 filed the release application which was registered as P.A. case 36/2003 on 1.10.2003. Subsequently, the petitioners were permitted to carry out the repairs in P.A. Case No. 46/2002. Subsequently, the petitioners were permitted to carry out the repairs in P.A. Case No. 46/2002. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No.2 filed a writ petition No. 54 (RC) of 2004 and a stay order was passed on 6.5.2004. 10. In P.A. Case No. 36/06, an ex parte order was passed on 16.8.2004 against the petitioners and their mother fixing 23.9.2004. An application C-27 under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure with power C-29 was filed on behalf of petitioners 2 and 3 and their mother which was recalled and it was mentioned that against petitioner No.1, the ex parte order will remain in force as the same has not been set aside. The written state­ment C-33 was filed on behalf of the peti­tioner Nos.2 and 3 and their mother with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same on 20.10.2004, but on 29.11.2004 the mother of the petitioners expired. 11. The petitioner No.1 filed an applica­tion C-54 under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the order dated 16.8.2004 on the ground that his relations with other petitioners 2 and 3 were strained as such they only filed the application on their behalf. The said application was rejected on 12.5.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 on 4.8.2006 filed an application C-66 for recall/review of the order dated 12.5.2006 which was rejected on 14.9.2006. 12. Subsequently, on 12.1.2007, an appli­cation B-69 for amendment in written state­ment was filed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 which was rejected by the order dated 2.4.2007. The arguments in P.A. Case 36/03 for release and P.A. Execution 6/05 for re­pairs were heard on 1.8.2007 and the appli­cation under Section 21 (1) (a) filed by the opposite party No.2 for release of the ground floor under occupation of the petitioners was rejected by the order dated 9.8.2007 and in P.A. Execution 6/05, the Court Amin was directed to carry out the order passed on 12.3.2004. The petitioners carried out reno­vation work in the outer part of the residen­tial house in the presence of Court Amin for which no account was submitted. It is perti­nent to mention here that the entire ground floor accommodation is in their possession on a nominal rent of Rs.25/- per month which is to be deposited under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. It is perti­nent to mention here that the entire ground floor accommodation is in their possession on a nominal rent of Rs.25/- per month which is to be deposited under Section 30 (1) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Further, the opposite party No.2 states that the petitioners have not ap­proached this Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the re­spondents submits that the written statement was filed on 20.10.2004 only on behalf of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and their mother Smt. Somwati, but during pendency of P.A. Case No. 36 of 2003, she died on 27.11.2004. At the stage of arguments before the Prescribed Authority, in P.A. Case No. 36/03, petitioner No.3 filed the supplementary affidavit against which no objection was filed. Further, the Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 14.7.2006 declined the prayer of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 for inspection of house No.497/28, Babuganj, Lucknow, but in appeal, the Appellate Court decided the appeal on two issues. Firstly, whether the need of the land­lord is genuine, bona fide and pressing and secondly, whether the need of the opposite party No.2 is greater than that of the petition­ers. After considering the material aspects of the matter, the opposite party No.1 has re­corded a finding of bona fide need of the op­posite party No.2 and therefore, comparative hardship of the parties has been taken into consideration. It has come on record that the petitioners have constructed three storeyed building in front of the house in dispute. The second floor is being used by them for resi­dential purpose, while the ground floor and the first floor is being used by the tenant for commercial purpose. Therefore, question does not arise for irreparable loss. Under these circumstances, he prays for dismissal of writ petition. 14. While entertaining the writ petition, vide order dated 16.3.2010, this Court pro­vided that the petitioner should not be evicted from the premises in question. 15. Petitioner's Counsel has relied upon the cases of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh [ (2003) 2 SCC 3 ] : ( AIR 2003 SC 624 ), Kalpanth Pandey v. XI Addl. District Judge [1993 (11) LCD 499], Ashok Kumar v. 7th Addl. 15. Petitioner's Counsel has relied upon the cases of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh [ (2003) 2 SCC 3 ] : ( AIR 2003 SC 624 ), Kalpanth Pandey v. XI Addl. District Judge [1993 (11) LCD 499], Ashok Kumar v. 7th Addl. District Judge, Muzaffar nagar and oth­ers [1998 (16) LCD 1149], Smt. Chanda v. Smt. Haideri and others [1998 (16) LCD 107], Badri Prasad and others v. Munna Lal and others [1981 Allahabad Rent Cases 629] and Gopal Krishna Gupta v. IV Additional Dis­trict Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others [All C] 1995 906]: (1996 AIHC 2312). 16. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the appellate Court erred in holding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and placed reliance upon paragraph 8 of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhitar Singh (supra), which reads as under: - "One of the grounds for eviction contem­plated by all the rent control legislations, which otherwise generally lean heavily in favour of the tenants, is the need of the owner landlord to have his own premises, residen­tial or non-residential, for his own use or his own occupation. The expressions employed by different legislations may vary such as "bona fide requirement" "genuine need" "re­quires reasonably and in good faith" and so on. Whatever be the expression employed, the underlying legislative intent is one and that has been demonstrated in several judicial pro­nouncements of which we would like to re­fer to only three." 17. On the strength of decision rendered in Ashok Kumar v. 7th Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others (supra), it has been argued that a duty is imposed upon the Appel­late Authority to take into consideration all the relevant facts and factors which had weighed with the Prescribed Authority in reaching to a particular conclusion of fact and also to meet out the reasonings assigned in support thereof. In the instant case, the findings have been re­corded by the Appellate Court without con­sidering the materials on record. 18. The opposite party No.2 (Shyam Behari Verma) while riling the application under Section 21 (i) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has given the family details in paragraph 8 which reads as under:- "8. In the instant case, the findings have been re­corded by the Appellate Court without con­sidering the materials on record. 18. The opposite party No.2 (Shyam Behari Verma) while riling the application under Section 21 (i) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has given the family details in paragraph 8 which reads as under:- "8. That the family of the applicant con­sists of the :- Applicant - Shyam Bihari Verma, aged about 56 years His wife - Smt. Manorama, aged about 48 years Son - Ashwani Kumar, aged about 23 years and is likely to be married in near future Son - Pawan Kumar, aged about 21 years." 19. The said application was moved in the year 2003 and seven years have elapsed since then. Therefore, the age of the opposite party No.2 would be 63 years, wife Smt. Manorama 55 years, son Ashwani Kumar 30 years and the second son Pawan Kumar 28 years. In the application it was mentioned that the first son is likely to be married in the near future. Therefore, the members of family must have increased by now. It has also been pleaded in the application that the wife was suffering from High Blood Pressure and Angina. With the advancement of the age, the opposite party No.2 and his wife might be suffering with the old age problems too. 20. As regards the alternative accommo­dation, it has come on record that the peti­tioner has purchased a land from the Lucknow Development Authority and after construc­tion, ground floor of the premises has been let out to one Udai Pratap Singh, Proprietor of Pant Nagar Seed Store and on the first floor which has been rented a coaching in the name of 'Sahai Study Centre' is running. It is also on record that the petitioner has constructed hall-cum-Verandah and a kitchen. The peti­tioner has alleged that on account of low in­come he could not make the alternative ac­commodation for the residential purposes and much of the amount was also spent towards the treatment of his mother who was suffering serious ailment. The assertion of the petitioner that he has petty business which is the only source of livelihood for the family is not cor­rect. The Appellate Court has observed that the son of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Verma is a Lecturer in Central School and is earning handsome amount. The assertion of the petitioner that he has petty business which is the only source of livelihood for the family is not cor­rect. The Appellate Court has observed that the son of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Verma is a Lecturer in Central School and is earning handsome amount. His wife is also a earning member as she is a Teacher by profession. 21. As regards the bona fide need of the opposite party No.2, the Appellate Court has considered each and every aspect of the mat­ter and after due consideration of the mate­rial on record came to the conclusion that the need of the opposite party No.2 is bona fide and not whimsical. The Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner did not make any sincere effort for searching the alternative residential accom­modation. In my opinion, the view arrived at by the Appellate Court is just, as the petitioner is enjoying the huge space in a heart of the city on a meagre rent of Rs.25 per month. Therefore, he has adopted all the means and methods to avoid in vacating the premises. 22. The Appellate Court has considered all the materials on record and the case laws to arrive on a proper conclusion. In my view, the issues decided by the Appellate Court and the findings arrived at are based on cogent reasons. 23. Right from Apex Court to this Court, the law is settled that on submission of a re­lease application, the tenant must look for alternative accommodation/residential pre­mises. Even, as per the latest rent laws, the goodwill of a shop keeper or businessman would not play any dominant role because the good will is like fragrance, which can travel any where, like flower's scent and the customers will go to the new location. 24. Recently, the Apex Court has held in a rent matter relating to tenancy of shops situ­ated in the posh area of Connaught place in the Capital City i.e., New Delhi that dealing with the bona fide need of the landlord, his interest cannot be ignored giving some spe­cial preference to a tenant. The need of the landlord is to be construed more liberally, if suitable alternative accommodation is avail­able to the tenant. 25. The landlord has established his bona fide need by producing sufficient material on record and the facts and law both are in his favour. The need of the landlord is to be construed more liberally, if suitable alternative accommodation is avail­able to the tenant. 25. The landlord has established his bona fide need by producing sufficient material on record and the facts and law both are in his favour. It is always open for the landlord to use the building/shop according to his require­ments and the tenant cannot dictate terms to landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. In Pratima Devi v. T. V. Krishnan [ (1996) 5 SCC 353 ], the Apex Court held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and Courts have no con­cern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The present case is squarely covered by the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as re­ported in (2005) 8 SCC 252 , Sait Nagjee Purshotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others. Thus, the view of the pre­scribed authority that balance of hardship lay in favour of the petitioner is utterly errone­ous in law. 26. The Appellate Authority has found that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hard­ship in the event the application was rejected. In para 17 of Rishi Kumar Man v. Third Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and another [2008 (UP) KCC 615] : ( AIR 2006 SC 770 ) this Court held as under:- "17. The Prescribed Authority had found that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application was re­jected. The Prescribed Authority had taken into consideration the fact that during the pendency of the application, the tenant had not made any effort to search out any alter­native accommodation. This finding is supported by the decision of this Court in Faiyaz Khan v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Jhansi and others, 2006 (62) ALR 908 : ((2006) 3 All LJ (NOC) 417), wherein it was observed: "Concept of comparative hardship cannot be stretched to the extent of depriving the landlord of his property even if landlord is in real and imminent need. It has been brought on record that in adjoining town Dr. Amin was having a clinic even though he asserted that he attended that only off and on. In any case tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. It has been brought on record that in adjoining town Dr. Amin was having a clinic even though he asserted that he attended that only off and on. In any case tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. As held by the Supreme-Court in B. C. Butada v. GR.Mundana, AIR 2003 SC 2713 , this by itself was sufficient to tilt the balance of hard­ship against the tenant." 27. This Court has also found from the record that the tenant has made no efforts for searching alternative accommodation after the release application was submitted by the landlord before the prescribed authority in the year 2003. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 2713 ; B.C.Bhutada v. GR.Mundada and this Court in recent deci­sions of this Court as reported in 2005 (1) ARC 394; Jogendra Singh Bajaj (Dr.) and oth­ers v. IVth Additional District Judge, Saliaranpur and another, 2005 (1) ARC 37; Radhey Shyam Shukla v. Vllth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and another, 2006 (1) ARC 65 : ((2006) 4 ALJ (NOC) 665). Hashmat Ali v. Vlth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar and others and 2006 (1) ARC 93 : ((2006) 4 ALJ (NOC) 667; Braham Kumar and others v. Raja Ram and others has held that in respect of comparative hardships, if the tenant did not show what efforts he made to search an alternative accommodation after filing of the release applications, this fact would be sufficient to tilt the balance of hard­ship against him. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the petitioner is granted time till 31st January, 2011 to vacate the premises in question provided that (1) within one month from today he files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-opposite party No.2 and (2) For the period of six months, which has been granted to the petitioner to vacate he is required to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as 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-opposite party No.2. 1,000/- per month as 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-opposite party No.2. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or amount of Rs.6,000/- is not depos­ited within one month, then tenant petitioner 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. 29. Accordingly, the writ petition is dis­missed. Petition dismissed.