JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by District Judge, Mathura in P.A. Appeal No. 4 of 2010, Harendra Kumar Gupta (deceased) v. Panna Lal (deceased). The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict him from the property in dispute to the extent of four feet in width in it. 3. It appears that Harendra Kumar Gupta filed a petition under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner which was registered as P.A. Case No. 10 of 1996, Harendra Kumar Gupta v. Panna Lal, alleging that applicant therein is owner and landlord of the property in dispute, of which Panna Lal was tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. It was claimed by the respondent landlord that width of main door for his ingress and egress is only “2.3” feet through the gallery adjacent to the shop in dispute and that he required atleast 4 feet more width in the gallery from the shop under tenancy of the petitioner so as to have passage for his car for parking on the land behind the shop for which there was no other parking space. 4. Case of the petitioner tenant before the Court below was that release application filed by the landlord deserves to be dismissed on the ground that need of the landlord was not genuine and bona fide and also on the ground of comparative hardship which may be suffered by the petitioner in case of his eviction from the shop which was only 5 feet in width. During pendency of the release application, the plaintiff as well as the defendant expired and their respective heirs were substituted and brought on record. 5. On basis of pleadings of the parties, the following four issues were framed by the prescribed authority for decision : 1. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. Whether the need of the applicant is bona fide and genuine? 3. Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss, if the disputed property is not released and if it is released, then opposite party will suffer greater hardship than the applicant? 4. Relief. 6. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. Whether the need of the applicant is bona fide and genuine? 3. Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss, if the disputed property is not released and if it is released, then opposite party will suffer greater hardship than the applicant? 4. Relief. 6. The Prescribed authority Court considered the application for release by the landlord and dismissed it on the ground that his need was not bona fide and also on the ground that there is another door available to them on the southern side of the house which was not mentioned by him in his release application. 7. The Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 decided the question of bona fide need in favour of the tenant petitioner in this case and rejected the release application. Aggrieved the respondent landlord preferred P.A. appeal No. 4 of 2010. 8. In appeal, the landlord challenged the findings of the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide and genuineness of the need. It was argued before the appellate autority that there is no gate available on southern side from which car could come inside the compound /open space for parking and only way available was by release of the shop through which car could be taken to the open land behind it. The parties in this regard also relied upon the map filed alongwith the plaint. 9. The appellate Court reversed the findings arrived at by the trial Court on the question of bona fide need and allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 16.7.2010 which has given cause for filing the present writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the validity and correctness of the order in appeal, has made two submissions, (i) that if any other shop is offered by the landlord, he is ready and willing to vacate the shop in question and shift therein, and (ii) that all amenities are enjoyed by the landlord and factually an incorrect statement has been made by him that he is not able to enjoy amenities of fridge, double bed and car etc. for he is not able to bring them inside as the main door is too small for ingress and egress his compound behind the shop in question. for he is not able to bring them inside as the main door is too small for ingress and egress his compound behind the shop in question. He has relied upon paragraph No. 11 of the appellate Court judgment wherein the Court has noted thus : “11. During the course of trial, an affidavit of DW 1 Shyam Sundar (143Ka) was filed, in which he has stated that all the goods which were necessary for the present day good living are available in the house of the applicant. Apart from it, the present shop in possession of the tenant is the only shop and the only source of his livelihood. It is also mentioned that the applicant had got one Moolchand evicted from his other shop and the entrance of the gate, if required, may be made through that shop. It is further argued that this fact has such equinity been admitted by the appellant that the goods necessary for the present day living are available in the house but it was stated that he could took these goods inside the house through the roof of the house and not from this gate.” 11. Considering arguments of the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that appellate Court was of the view that requirement of the landlord or the tenant must be honest and not tainted by any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. It should be bona fide and genuine. 12. The appellate Court found that proceedings in this case for eviction are pending for the last 14 years and concluded that it is not expected in law that status of a person may not have changed during such a long period, hence notice of changed circumstances must also be taken by the Court. 13. The appellate Court also noted the fact that an affidavit of one Girdhar Gopal Khandelwal (paper No. 42 C) was filed on behalf of the appellant , in which it was averred that in Baba Market which is adjacent to the shop in question, two shops were available which were offered by Girdhar Gopal Khandelwal-owner of the shops to the petitioner, but he did not shift there and that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the prescribed authority in its judgment. 14. 14. It has also been noted by the appellate Court that it is the right of the landlord to use his premises in the way he can use his amenities conveniently. The main entrance of his house is only two feet and three inches wide adjacent to the shop under tenancy of the petitioner which has width of 5 feet. The main entrance is very narrow and the landlord is unable to use his house hold amenities like double bed, fridge and car etc. which was brought by his daughter in law in marriage as these cannot be accommodated through the narrow main door and had to be brought inside the house from over the roof top. 15. It may be that once these household goods are brought inside from over the rooftop but it is certain that whenever such electronic goods as T.V., fridge or other house hold goods such as bed, Almirah, would require repair, it would be very difficult for the landlord to take out or keep in such items /goods from roof top for repairs. Even gallery of 2 feet 3 inches width would not be a passage of utility for ingress and egress of two wheeler vehicles much less a car. 16. The tenant does not appear to have made any efforts during last 15 years to search for another accommodation. In fact he was offered a vacant shop by the landlord as appeared from the record which is just adjacent to the shop in dispute but he did not accept the same. Therefore, contention of the counsel for petitioner that he is ready to shift to any vacant shop is meaningless and does not show bona fide of the tenant. Since the tenant has not made any bona fide effort even to search a shop, balance of hardship tilts against him as has been held in catena of decisions particularly in the case of B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Kundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 , wherein the Apex Court has held that after filing of release application tenant must make efforts either to purchase another accommodation or to take another accommodation on rent and failure to make any such effort tilts balance of hardship against him. 17. In similar matter, this Court in Smt. Saraswati Devi (dead) through Lrs. 17. In similar matter, this Court in Smt. Saraswati Devi (dead) through Lrs. v. Kali Charan Yadav and another, 2005(6) ALR 597, held that need of the landlady for the release of accommodation for the purpose of getting her car parked, was genuine and bona fide. 18. Argument of the counsel for petitioner that statement of the landlord that he has all amenities inside the house which he brought from the roof top, shows that his need is not genuine, deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that it would be too cumbersome for the landlord to take this exercise everytime a thing needed repairs and in any case car cannot be brought from the roof top to the open land available inside for safe parking. Admittedly, there is no other space where the car may be parked except the land behind the shop in dispute which can be converted in passage as main door by the landlord as car cannot be parked in the aforesaid land as some other house hold goods have been taken inside the house from the roof top. In fact there is no denial by the petitioner that respondent has no other land for parking or that he does not have amenities of car which he is unable to use in his house. 19. For the reasons that petitioner has neither made any effort to search for a vacant shop nor has accepted the offer made on behalf of the landlord for occupying two vacant shops which were available just 10 feet away from the present shop in the market as well as the fact that question of bona fide need was not addressed to by the prescribed authority in this context as noted in its judgment by the appellate Court, the order impugned passed by the appellate Court, in my considered opinion, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. 20. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————