JUDGMENT Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The tenant petitioner is challenging the validity and correctness of order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Budaun in R.C.C. no. 1 of 2001 as well as order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 12 of 2008. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders on the ground that in view of the provisions of section 34 and 38 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act no. 13 of 1972 ), it was a right of the petitioner to get any relevant evidence which he proposed to adduce, admitted and even after admitting the additional evidence, the appellate court did not advert to the same. 3. It is stated that additional evidence of the petitioner was admitted in evidence by order dated 12.3.2010 but the same has not been considered by the appellate court and if the evidence would have been considered, then it would have been amply proved that there were four new shops available to the respondent landlord in which they could easily carry out their business. However, in this case both the courts below have tried to find out as to whether the tenant petitioner had bonafide need or not. 4. Next contention of the counsel for petitioner is that two shops belonging to family members of the petitioner are occupied by petitioner's brother and mother. According to him, one of the shops was in occupation of his brother - Darshan Kumar and another shop was in occupation of his other brothers- Praveen Kumar and Naresh Kumar and hence the courts below have erred in taking into consideration those two shops occupied by his brothers where the petitioner could shift his business. 5. It is also submitted that had a commission been issued, then it would have been amply proved that there were several accommodations available to the landlord in which he could have easily expanded his business and as hardships of the petitioner have not been considered in accordance with rule 16(2) of the Rules framed under Act no. 5. It is also submitted that had a commission been issued, then it would have been amply proved that there were several accommodations available to the landlord in which he could have easily expanded his business and as hardships of the petitioner have not been considered in accordance with rule 16(2) of the Rules framed under Act no. 13 of 1972, the judgment by the courts below are erroneous as from the record it has been proved that the petitioner had made several efforts to get an alternate accommodation. 6. It is lastly submitted that accommodations of the landlord which were in name of his mother - Smt. Nighat Fatima and in name of landlord's sister- Waslim Nighat, was in fact benami property and the same ought to have been deemed in ownership of the landlord respondent in which they could have easily shifted their business, and hence in this view of the matter, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, counsel for the landlord respondent submits that the petitioner is tenant of the shop belonging to the landlord situated in Mohalla Bhadwarganj, Station Road, Ujhani, district Budaun in which he is running his business under the name and style "Dhawan Book Depot". It is stated that as the landlord bonafide required the shop, he moved an application under section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for ejecting the petitioner from the shop in dispute; that Prescribed Authority allowed the release application filed by the landlord vide judgment and order dated 2.1.2008; that tenant petitioner filed Rent Appeal no. 12 of 2008 which was dismissed by the appellate court by judgment and order dated 26.10.2010 holding that bonafide need and comparative hardships was in favour of the landlord. 8. The main ground of tenant petitioner for assailing the order impugned, is that landlord has constructed four shops which are available to him where he could expand and shift his business whereas the shop under tenancy of the petitioner is the only source of business for him and as such the courts below have erred in holding question of bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. 9. 9. The other ground for assailing the order appears to be that even after admitting additional evidence in respect of four shops said to have been constructed Benami by family members of the landlord, the courts below have not considered this aspect in the judgment impugned which has caused grave injustice to the petitioner tenant. 10. As regards the question of bonafide need is concerned, the Prescribed Authority in the impugned judgment has given a categorical finding of fact that petitioner was running business in the shop in dispute under the name "Dhawan Book Depot" and that it is not only the petitioner but his brothers is also working together in the shop in dispute as well as in other two shops. The Prescribed Authority has noted that there is no denial of this fact by the petitioner and it came to the conclusion that it is proved from the record that all brothers and mother are running the shop in dispute as well as other two shops jointly in the same name i.e. Dhawan Book Depot. This conclusion has been reached by considering the fact that petitioner had taken the shop on rent in the year 1980 while he was in service in Cane Department and it is only 6 - 7 years back that he started sitting in the shop in dispute and that prior to it his brothers were running the shop on his behalf. It also appears that SCC case no. 20 of 1994 was contested by the parties and both the shops were run by the petitioner and his brother under the name and style "Dhawan Book Depo" as it is not possible for two persons to run a shop independently each one of them under same name i.e. Dhawan Book Depo. The Prescribed Authority has also found that both the shops were under tenancy of the petitioner and he had sublet one of the shops to his brother and as such need set up by the landlord was bonafide whereas need and comparative hardships of the tenant petitioner is malafide. In fact the shop in dispute is two storied which also falsifies case of the petitioner tenant that he has taken other shop on rent due to paucity of space. 11. In fact the shop in dispute is two storied which also falsifies case of the petitioner tenant that he has taken other shop on rent due to paucity of space. 11. As regards four shops said to have been constructed by the landlord is concerned, the courts below have found that the construction is not of shops for commercial purposes but is of residential purposes by married sister of the landlord for her family from her own funds which is incomplete till date as such cannot be used for commercial purpose of shops. 12. The appellate court has considered the argument on behalf of the parties in this regard and has recorded a finding that family members of the petitioner have also purchased two shops and therefore he cannot raise question of bonafide need of the landlord being barred by the provisions of section 21 of the Act. 12. The appellate court has considered the argument on behalf of the parties in this regard and has recorded a finding that family members of the petitioner have also purchased two shops and therefore he cannot raise question of bonafide need of the landlord being barred by the provisions of section 21 of the Act. Finding recorded by the court below in this regard is as under : ^^esjh jk; esa vihykFkhZ Lo;a us okn la[;k 5@99 lSQqy ,tkt cuke iznhi dqekj esa fn;s x;s vius c;ku rgjhj vfHkys[k la[;k 105x@13 ds en la[;k 7 esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izR;FkhZx.k dh ekWa Jherh fuxgr QkRek O;kikj djrh vkSj og ,d jktuhfrd efgyk gS vkSj mUgksaus uxj ikfydk dk pquko Hkh yM+k gS vr% eSa mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vihykFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= 51x dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds fy, vk/kkj i;kZIr ugha ikrk gwWaA vihykFkhZ Lo;a us fyLV 47x ls vfHkys[k la[;k 63x @2 fuxgr QkRek ds cSukek dh QksVks izfr nkf[ky dh gS ftlesa fuxgr QkRek dk QksVks yxk gS ftlesa fuxgr QkRek cqdkZ ugha vks<+s gq, gSA esjh jk; esa eqlyekuksa esa cqdkZ vks<+uk ,d /kkfeZd izpyu gS blfy, oksVj fyLV esa vxj cqdkZ igudj QksVks f[kpok;k x;k gS blls ;g lkfcr ugha gksrk fd izR;FkhZx.k dh ekW fuxgr QkRek inkZulhu vkSjr gS] blfy, og O;kikj ugha djrh gS mijksDr leLr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esjh jk; esa vihykFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= 28x o 51x dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij i;kZIr ugha gS blfy, vihykFkhZ ds izkFkZuk i= 28x o 51x vLohdkj fd;s tkrs gSA nkSjku cgl vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls rdZ fd;k x;k gS fd izR;FkhZx.k us viuh ekrk okyh nqdku tks jhxy QksVks LVwfM;ksa ds uke ls pyrh gS] esa vius uke ls VsyhQksu dusD'ku fy;k gS] ftlls ,slk yxrk gS fd mDr nqdku tks jhxy QksVks LVwfM;ks ds uke ls pyk;h tkrh gS og izR;FkhZx.k Lo;a pyk jgs gSA eSaus bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; /;ku iwoZd voyksdu fd;kA [kQhQk okn la[;k 5@ 95 esa vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izfrokn i= nkf[ky fd;k gS ftldh izfr vfHkys[k la[;k&105@13 i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA ftlesa vihykFkhZ us QksVks xzkQh dk dke izR;FkhZx.k dh ekW fuxgr QkRek }kjk fd;k tkuk dgk gS vr% esjh jk; esa vihykFkhZ bl rF; ls eqdj ugha ldrs vkSj mu ij fooU/ku dk fl)kUr ykxw gksrk gSA ek= bl vk/kkj ij fd Jherh fuxgr QkRek ds iq= us vius uke ls mldlh QksVks xzkQh dh nqdku ij VsyhQksu yxok fy;k gS rks mlls ;g ugha dgk ldrk fd Jherh fuxgr QkRek dk iq= mDr nqdku dk lapkyu dj jgk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd izR;FkhZ @ oknhx.k dh vko';drk vihykFkhZ dh rqyuk esa lnHkkoh okLrfodrk o vf/kd cyorh gSA esjk Hkh mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij bl lEcU/k esa er gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fudkys x;s mDr fu"d"kZ esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ;k voS/kkfudrk ugha gSA** 13. The court below after considering question of alternative shop available and bonafide need and comparative hardship, has accepted the case of the landlord regarding bonafide need of the shop in dispute and held thus: ^^tgkWa rd oSdfYid O;oLFkk dk iz'u gS] vihykFkhZ ds ikl oSdfYid O;oLFkk igys ls gh ekStwn gS] ftlesa /kou cqd fMiksa ds uke ls foi{kh dk HkkbZ n'kZu dqekj O;kikj dj jgk gS] D;ksafd mDr n'kZu dqekj o"kZ 1996&97 rd xUuk foHkkx esa ukSdjh djrs Fks vkSj fookfnr nqdku mlls iwoZ gh vihykFkhZ dh fdjk;snkjh esa gS ftlesa /kou cqd fMiksa ds uke ls O;kikj gksrk vk jgk gSA D;ksafd ;fn ukSdjh esa jgdj n'kZu dqekj dh fdjk;snkjh okyh nqdku esa /kou cqd fMiksa ds uke ls O;kikj gks jgk gS rks og fuf'pr :i ls vihykFkhZ }kjk gh pyk;h tk jgh FkhA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mDr ds lEcU/k eas ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk gS fd izR;FkhZx.k dh vko';drk vihykFkhZ dh rqyuk esa vf/kd ln~Hkkoh cyorh o okLrfod gS vkSj ;fn iz'uxr nqdku fueqZDr ugha djk;h tkrh gS rks izR;FkhZ @ oknhx.k dks vihykFkhZ @ izfroknh dh rqyuk esa vf/kd {kfr gksus dh lEHkkouk gS vkSj ;fn iz'uxr nqdku fueqZDr djk;h tkrh gS rks vihykFkhZ ds ikl O;kikj lapkyu gsrq oSdfYid O;oLFkk Hkh ekStwn gSA esjh jk; esa i=koyh ij tks lk{; miyC/k gS mlds vk/kkj ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fudkyk x;k mDr fu"d"kZ mfpr gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkns'k fnukafdr 02-01-2008 esa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha le>rk gwWa vkSj esjk ;g Hkh er gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr fu.kZ.k es fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV ;k voS/kkfudrk ugha gS vkSj esjh jk; esa vihykFkhZ dh vihy lO;; [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA** 14. Thus, it appears from the impugned orders that both the courts below have considered the question raised by the petitioner regarding four shops said to have been constructed by family members of the landlord and if the tenant claims that the property is benami, even then conclusions arrived at by the court below, cannot be sidelined and he has to prove his case as specific finding has been given by the court below that construction is for residential purposes and not commercial. Whereas the courts below have also come to the conclusion that family members of the petitioner have in fact purchased two shops in which his brothers are running business under the name and style "Dhawan Book Depot" which is the same business and name under which shop in dispute is being run by the petitioner. 15. Considering the fact that petitioner had taken shop in dispute while he was in service and the same was being run by his brothers and there being no cogent evidence on record to indicate that petitioner's brothers were doing their separate business prior to taking the shop in dispute on rent and this fact having also not been denied by the petitioner that the constructions said to have been made by family members of the landlord have in fact been made by widow sister of the landlord for residential purposes, the court below has disbelieved the case of the petitioner that his mother has purchased two shops from her own funds by selling her ornaments. In fact from the record it appears that petitioner had modified his stand at a later stage which has given cause to disbelieve his case by the court below. 16. Since the petitioner has alternative accommodation having purchased two shops ( said to have been purchased by his mother) and concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that his brothers are working with him, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances, the orders impugned are upheld. 17. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall hand over peaceful vacant possession of the shop in dispute to respondent landlord within a period of fifteen days from today. No order as to costs.