Rakesh Tiwari, J.:- 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. P.A. Case No. 14 of 2006, Ali Haider Versus Naqui Hassan was registered under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on an application for release moved by the landlord for release of shop no.2 on the ground floor of House No. CK.46/61 in Mohalla Bhikshashah Gali Sarai, Haraha, Varanasi. 3. Objections were filed by the petitioner tenant denying the allegations made therein. The parties then adduced evidence in support of their respective cases before the court below. 4. The Prescribed Authority vide his order and judgment dated 19.2.2010 allowed the release application of the respondent landlord directing the petitioner to vacate the shop in question within two months failing which the landlord would be entitled to get the possession of shop in dispute in accordance with law. The Prescribed Authority further directed the landlord to pay compensation of two years' rent to the tenant within 30 days. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 36 of 2010, Naqui Hassan versus Ali Haider before the appellate Court. Vide judgment and order dated 6.8.2010 the appellate Court has confirmed the order and judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority which is challenged by the petitioner along with order and judgment dated 19.2.2010 of the Prescribed Authority appended as Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition respectively. 6. The aforesaid orders have been challenged on the ground that respondent landlord has no bonafide need or requirement of the shop in dispute in occupation of the petitioner as he has already 3 other vacant shops. As regards the comparative hardship is concerned, it is stated that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective and have arrived at a wrong conclusion that the bonafide need of the landlord is genuine and that the shop is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner has not been considered. 7. The petitioner carries on business of manufacture of cosmetic items in his manufacturing unit nearby situate in building no. 46/61 of sale and purchase of ladies' cosmetics items in the shop in question is of 5 ft.x 5 ft. dimension. 7. The petitioner carries on business of manufacture of cosmetic items in his manufacturing unit nearby situate in building no. 46/61 of sale and purchase of ladies' cosmetics items in the shop in question is of 5 ft.x 5 ft. dimension. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent from the admission of the landlord in paragraph 2 of the release application. It is contended that there are seven shops in House No.CK.46/61 in Mohalla Bhikshashah Gali Sarai Haraha, Varanasi, out of which shop no.1 is in use and occupation of respondent landlord, shop no.2 is in tenancy of the petitioner, shop no.3 is in use and occupation of tenant Seraj Ahmad shop no.4 is in occupation of respondent's brother Abul Hassan and remaining three shop nos. 5,6 and 7 are vacant and are kept closed by the respondent. 8. The orders impugned are also assailed on the ground that the respondent landlord's brothers Akbar Hasan and Kalbe Hasan are incapable of doing any work due to loss of eye sight and other ailments which fact has not been denied by the landlord. It is also stated that the petitioner's two sons namely, Hasan Shabbir alias Azmi and Sajid Hasan used to help the petitioner in manufacture and sale of cosmetic items. The petitioner has handed over the work of manufacture in House No. 46/56 to his son Sajid Hasan and he with the help of other son Hasan Shabbir was doing sale of cosmetic items from shop no.3 in dispute who died in 1998 in a road accident. Thus, shop no.2 is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and if the shop is released he shall suffer irreparable loss. Both the Courts below have ignored this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order. 9. He has lastly contended that the house in question belongs to respondent no.3 landlord and his "brothers" do not fall within the ambit of definition of "family" as defined in Section 3(g) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It is stated that there is no evidence to prove that the business of the landlord has improved to the extent that he may require some additional accommodation and in this view of the matter, even assuming that the landlord needs additional accommodation, he can satisfy his need from vacant shop nos. It is stated that there is no evidence to prove that the business of the landlord has improved to the extent that he may require some additional accommodation and in this view of the matter, even assuming that the landlord needs additional accommodation, he can satisfy his need from vacant shop nos. 5,6 and 7. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the map appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition showing situation of these shops. It is as under:- "In the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Prescribed Authority, Varanasi P.A. Case No. 14 of 2006 Ali Haider versus Naqi Hasan SITE PLAN OF HOUSE NO. CK.46/61 MOHALLA- BHIKA SHAH GALI, CITY-VARANASI. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon paragraph 11 of the release application filed by the landlord in support of his above contention that shop nos. 5,6 and 7 are vacant and can be utilized by the petitioner by which his need for additional accommodation would be satisfied. It is urged that as ample additional accommodation is available to the petitioner he has no bonafide need of the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. Paragraph 11 relied upon by the petitioner thus:- @ Hindi @ 11. From a perusal of the averments made in paragraph 11 of the release application, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that shop nos. 5,6 and 7 in possession of the landlord are vacant which can be utilized by him for his need of additional accommodation does not appear to be correct. From reading of paragraph 11 it is apparent that these shops are neither vacant nor in possession of the landlord and that shop no.7 is in fact not a shop rather a small place which can be used as Cupboard or Almirah. It also appears that due to recession in the market the business of his brothers are not flourishing. 12. Per contra, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent landlord is that house no.46/61 situated in Mohalla Bhikshashah Gali, Sarai Haraha, Varanasi in which the petitioner tenant has shop no.2 was the property of the father of the respondent landlord who had five sons including the petitioner. 12. Per contra, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent landlord is that house no.46/61 situated in Mohalla Bhikshashah Gali, Sarai Haraha, Varanasi in which the petitioner tenant has shop no.2 was the property of the father of the respondent landlord who had five sons including the petitioner. He also submits that after the death of their father, the brothers had entered into family settlement and they are in occupation of their respective shares of shop i.e. shop nos.4,5,6 and 7. He also submits that shop no.2 in question was sub-let to another person which was earlier being used as store from which sale of cosmetics from a counter was done.l But after the death of the son this shop was closed and sale of cosmetics is done on a counter by the tenant from outside the shop. Learned counsel for the respondent landlord submits that the petitioner has not paid rent since 1996 till today. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has failed to deposit rent @ Rs.60/- per month from February,1997 to 30th November, 2005. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is apparent that the petitioner was carrying on business of manufacturing of ladies' cosmetic items from his shop measuring 20'x8' in House no. CK.46/56 Mohalla Bhikhashah Gali Sarai Haraha, Varanasi and he was using the shop no.2 measuring 5ft.x5ft. for store purposes and now a sale counter has been opened in front of the shop by the tenant said to be under partnership. 14. The trial Court has decided the question of bonafide need in favour of the landlord. Paragraph 7 of the judgment on bonafide need is thus:- @ Hindi @ 15. From perusal of the finding on the question of bonafide need it is apparent that the lower appellate court has held that the respondent landlord filed an application for release of shop no.2 in question adjacent to shop no.1 on the ground of establishing his son in the business of purchase and sale of electronic items to expand his business and augment his income. The Court noted that there are seven shops in House No. CK. The Court noted that there are seven shops in House No. CK. 46/61 in Mohalla Bhikshashah Gali Sarai Harha, Varanasi, out of which shop no.1 is in use and occupation of respondent landlord and his son, shop no.2 is in the tenancy of the petitioner, shop no.3 is in use and occupation of tenant Seraj Ahmad and shop nos. 4 to 7 are use and occupation of the brothers of the respondent landlord. It also noted the contention of the tenant that shop no.4 is in use and occupation of landlord's brother Abdul Hasan and shop nos.5,6 and 7 are vacant which are kept closed by the respondent. He can satisfy his need from vacant shop nos. 5,6 and 7. The Court below has recorded a categorical finding of fact that according to the family settlement, shop nos. 4 to 7 are in possession of brothers who are doing their business of musicians in their respective shops. They are occupying the shops in their own rights as landlords. While holding the need of the respondent landlord bonafide in respect of shop no.2 in question, the lower appellate Court has relied upon the decision rendered in Sri Chandra Gupta versus IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut and others, 1999 (2) JCLR-194 as well as upon the decision rendered in Sri Dal Chandra versus Prem Chandra Goel, ALR, 2007 (67) page-538.In the case of Sri Chandra Gupta (supra), the plea of need of the landlord for the shop for himself and his son on the ground of expanding the business as well as for augmenting his income was found to be bonafide. 16. As regards comparative hardship is concerned, the courts below have held that shop no.2 of the tenant is adjacent to shop no.1 of the petitioner. The shop nos. 5,6 and 7 are said to be of the brothers and are in their possession; that no commission was got issued to bring on record that those shops are vacant as alleged by the tenant; that admittedly the petitioner tenant has a shop/manufacturing unit in house no. CK.46/56 in same locality situated nearby; that the petitioner was using the shop no.2 area 4'x5' as godown and did not make any effort to search for an alternative accommodation after service of notice to vacate. Hence, the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. CK.46/56 in same locality situated nearby; that the petitioner was using the shop no.2 area 4'x5' as godown and did not make any effort to search for an alternative accommodation after service of notice to vacate. Hence, the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. Paragraph 8 of the jugment on comparative hardship is thus:- “8- @ Hindi @ 17. The brothers of respondent no.3 are flute players and the court below has recorded a finding that shop nos. 4,5,6 and 7 are in their possession according to the family settlement, all of whom reside on the first floor of house no. CK. 46/61 Bhikha Shah Ki Gali Sarai Haraha, Varanasi. According to the findings of the court below quoted above, it is apparent that shop nos.4 5,6 and 7 are in possession of brothers who are doing their business of musicians in their respective shops. They are not tenants in the shop and they are occupying the shops in their own rights as landlords. Admittedly, the petitioner has a shop measuring 20'x8' of House no. CK.46/56 in Mohalla Bhikhashah Gali Varanasi about 50 yards away from the shop in dispute where he is carrying the business of manufacture and sale of cosmetics. He would not face any inconvenience, if he is evicted from the shop in question. The petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he is doing business from the shop in dispute from which he had started sale of cosmetics with his son,which according to the respondent closed due to death of son of the petitioner in a road accident. Even if, the case of the petitioner is accepted that two brothers of respondent no.3 are incapable of doing any work due to loss of eye sight, they can still earn their livelihood as musicians. It is not only be inhuman but also senseless assertion by the petitioner tenant to assert that respondent should use shop nos. 5,6 and 7 of his brothers for his need for the reason that they are in possession of those shops in their own right as landlords and to evict the blind brothers from their shops who can earn their livelihood by playing music would be too harsh. Even otherwise, the sons of those brothers who are grown up can establish themselves in family business or in any other business. Even otherwise, the sons of those brothers who are grown up can establish themselves in family business or in any other business. The petitioner has stated that his business has increased which can be verified from the records and he wanted the shop in question to expand the business. If the petitioner disputed this postilion, he ought to have proved his assertion by evidence which has not been done by him. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that bonafide need of the respondent landlord is greater than the petitioner if the shop in question is not released in his favour. 18. It also appears from reading of paragraph 11 of the release application that the aforesaid shop nos. 4 to 7 are in possession of four brothers namely, Akbar Hussain, Ali Abbas, Abdul Hasan and Kalbe Hasan. According to the family settlement, they are the owners of these shops, hence the petitioner has no right to challenge the need of the respondent to which belong to the brothers of the landlord on the ground that his need can be satisfied from shop nos. 4,5,6 and 7 of the landlord. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has paid the rent of the aforesaid period, it is apparent that there was default in payment of rent for more than four months i.e. w.e.f. February, 1997 to 30.11.2005 which is alleged to have been paid thereafter. As regards default and arrears of rent are concerned, no rent receipts have been filed by the petitioner in the court below. Admittedly, it is claimed by the respondent landlord that the petitioner has not paid the rent which comes to Rs.6310. 19. For the reasons stated above and in view of the ratio laid by the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC-3353, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy and deterrent cost. The Apex Court in respect of imposing costs has held thus:- " So far as awarding of costs at the time of judgment is concerned, awarding of costs must be treated generally as mandatory inasmuch as the liberal attitude of the Courts in directing the parties to bear their own costs had led the parties to file a number of frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous and unnecessary issues. Costs should invariably follow the event. Where a party succeeds ultimately on one issue or point but loses on number of other issues or points, which were unnecessarily raised. Costs must be appropriately apportioned. Special reasons must be assigned if costs are not being awarded. Costs should be assessed according to rule in force. If any of the parties has unreasonably protracted the proceedings, the judge should consider exercising discretion to impose exemplary costs after taking into account the expense incurred for the purpose of attendance on the adjourned dates." 20. Thus from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Salem Advocate bar Association (supra) it is apparent that non-payment of cost is an exception for which special reasons have to be given by the Court and that in normal circumstances cost has to be awarded on the party according to the issue decided in favour of the party which were unnecessarily raised. The cost so imposed should be in accordance with rules and if the proceedings are unnecessarily protracted or adjournments have been sought it is upon the discretion of the Judge to impose exemplary cost taking also into account the circumstances etc. for the purpose of adjournment. 21. The aforesaid case has been followed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48752 of 2006 Nizamuddin versus Shakoor Ahmad in which judgment has been rendered on 5.9.2006 after considering the relevant Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 as well as Sections 34,35,35A and 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held therein that:- " From the aforesaid rule it is evident that the Court can make such order as to costs as it may consider just. It is discretionary power of the Court to impose cost, hence it cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The Court should award cost for judicious approach taking into consideration the whole set of facts and circumstances and not award cost arbitrarily or capriciously. In my opinion while awarding interest on a party by non-payment of principal amount or any dues should also be considered by the Court and not only interest but penal interest may also be awarded." 22. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. In my opinion while awarding interest on a party by non-payment of principal amount or any dues should also be considered by the Court and not only interest but penal interest may also be awarded." 22. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. It shall be deposited by the petitioners before the authority concerned and paid to the landlord within two months from today. In case of failure of the petitioners to deposit the cost before the Executing Court, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from them within a month thereafter and paid forthwith to the landlord. The amount of rent of Rs. 6310/- be also paid to the landlord within the aforesaid period of two months. Petition Dismissed.