JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.C. Mukherji , learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.2.2000 passed by IXth Additional District Judge, Gonkda, opposite party no.1. 3. In brief , the factual matrix of the case are that the opposite parties-landlord moved an application for release under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 in respect to the shop situate in Mohalla Gahri Bazar, Colonelganj, district Gonda under the tenancy of one Sri Asha Ram. Need as set up in the release application moved in the year 1985 by the respondent landlord was to the effect that shop in question under the tenancy of the Asha Ram required for business of his son Sri Ramesh Kumar ( opposite party no.4) . Accordingly P.A. Case No. 17/95/1985 registered before the prescribed authority/ Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Gonda. On behalf of the tenant, a written statement filed, further a Commission was also issued to verify the fact , Commissioner submitted report (annexed as annexure no.3 to the writ petition). Thereafter , the prescribed authority on the basis of material evidence on record. On 5.12.2996 dismissed P.A. Case no.17 /95/1985 (Smt. Sarojini Devi Vs. Asha Ram). 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.12.1996 passed by prescribed authority /Civil Judge ( Senior Division ) Gonda , the landlord filed an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 ( Rent Appeal No. 1 of 1997) before IXth Additional District Judge, Gonda. The appellate authority after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the appeal by order dated 11.2.2000 and while allowing the appeal a finding has been given by the appellate authority that the bona fide need of the landlord is genuine . Further it was also stated that in the matter in question release application moved on 20.11.1985 and since then no efforts have been made by the tenant in order to search an alternative accommodation although 14 years have passed . Further it was also stated that in the matter in question release application moved on 20.11.1985 and since then no efforts have been made by the tenant in order to search an alternative accommodation although 14 years have passed . In addition to above said fact itself, the appellate authority also given a findings of fact that the tenant cannot direct the landlord to chose some other accommodation/premises for his business as it is a sole prerogative of landlord to start a business according to his own need and convenience . 5. The order dated 11.2.2000 has been challenged before this Court by means of the present writ petition . 6. Sri U.S. Sahai learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the appellate authority submitted that the findings given by the appellate court in respect to the comparative need between the parties are perverse and contrary to fact of the case as there was no material evidence on record to hold that the need of landlord is genuine.. He further submits that the landlord after filing the release application in the year 1985 got one shop vacated from Brij Mohan from the same the business can be done by the son of landlord comfortably. Further one shop sold by landlord during the pendency of the litigatioin. On the basis of the said fact, it is argued by Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner that need of the landlord in respect to release of the shop in question, neither bona fide nor genuine , hence the order passed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside. 7. Sri D.C. Mukherji , learned counsel for the respondent in support of the order passed by the appellate authority submits that the looking into the need of the landlord which is genuine and bona fide in comparison to tenant, the appellate authority rightly passed the order dated 11.2.2000 as such no interference whatsoever is required in the present writ petition . 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the present case, the relation between the landlord and the tenant are not denied , further for the need of Sri Ramesh Kumar (opposite party no. 4), the release application moved which is on record as annexure no.1 to the writ petition . 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In the present case, the relation between the landlord and the tenant are not denied , further for the need of Sri Ramesh Kumar (opposite party no. 4), the release application moved which is on record as annexure no.1 to the writ petition . In pare -6 of the release application it has been specifically stated that the shop in question under the tenancy of the then tenant Sri Asha Ram required in order to start the business by Sri Ramesh Kumar. 10. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the writ petition erstwhile tenant Asha Ram died and his heirs namely , Smt. Kiran , Sanjay Kumar , Rajan Kumar and Shrawan Kumar were substituted and brought on record. Thereafter they also filed an affidavit inter alia stating therein that the shop in question is the only source of their livelihood . 11. From the the perusal of the order passed by the appellant authority, it is crystal clear that the appellate authority on the basis of the documentary evidence namely, affidavit of Smt. Sarojini Devi , Wali Mohammad, Shri Kant, Ram Narain and Ramesh Kumar had came to the conclusion that the need of the Ramesh Kumar is genuine and bona fide for doing business from the shop in dipuste in order to earn his livelihood as presently he is doing business from the shop only four fits wides not suitable for business . In view of the said fact for a moment if it is assumed that Ramesh Kumar is doing business from the said shop which is four fits vide then it can not be said that Ramesh Kumar in order to do a proper business to earn better livelihood does not need the shop in question as it is a sole prerogative of landlord to choice the shop from which he wants to do the business and the tenant cannot deny the landlord to do a business from a petitioner shop. 12. 12. Further the Prescribed Authority also given a finding of fact that no shop vacated by Sri Brij Mohan, moreover the appellate authority while passing the order under challenged held that the tenant got a house at Mohalla Gandhi Nagar situated at a very short distance from the shop in question, they can start their business from the said place. The appellate court recorded a finding of fact that since filing of the release application 14 years have passed, no efforts made by the tenant to search the alternative accommodation for their requirement. 13. The word ' reasonable requirement' as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mst. Bega Begum and others Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan and others , (1979) 1 SCC 275 that the words ' reasonable requirement' undoubtedly postulates that there must be an element of need as opposed to mere desire or wish. The distinction between 'desire' and 'need' should be kept in mind but not so as to make the genuine need as a mere desire. 14. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Mst. Bega Begum and others V. Abdul Ahad Khand (Dead) (supra) has held that it is not doubt true that the tenant will have to be ousted from the house if a decree of eviction is passed but such an event would happen eventually whenever a decree for eviction is passed and merely because the tenant will be ousted from the premises where he was running his activity cannot be itself be considered to be a hardship and be availed ground for refusing the landlord a decree for eviction. So in the instant case as the tenant did not make any effort to search an alternative accommodation immediatel, the filing of the release application and even thereafter the said facts are sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against them as held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhutada V. G.R. Mundada 2003 Supreme Court 2713; 2005(2) ARC 899 , subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Salim Khan V. Ivth Additional District Judge, Jhanshi and others , 2006(1) ARC 588 wherein it is held as under:- " in respect of comparative hardship , tenant did not show what efforts they made to search alternative accommodation after filing of release application . This case sufficient to tilt the balance of hardship against them Vide Bhutada V. G.R. Mundada 2003 Supreme Court 2713; 2005(2) ARC 899. Moreover, rent of Rs. 6/- per month which the tenants are paying is virtually as well as actually no rent. By paying such insignificant rent they must have saved a lot of money. Money saved is money earned. They must , therefore, be in a position to take another house on good rent. Further, they did not file any allotment application for allotment of another house. Under Rule 10(3) of the Rules framed under the Act, a tenant, against whom release application has been filed, is entitled to apply for allotment of another house immediately. Naturally such person is to be given preference in the matter of allotment. Respondents did not file any such allotment application. Thus, the question of comparative hardship has also to be decided against the tenants." The said view further reiterated by this Court in the following cases:- (1) Jai Raj Agarwal Vs. Bhola Nath kapoor and others , 2005(3) ARC 417. (2) Rulemuddin and others Vs. Abdul Nadeem ,2007(2) ARC 62. (3) Mohabbey Ali Vs Taj Bahadur and other, 2009 (2) ARC 715. (4) Raj Kumar Vs. Lal Khan, 2009 (2) ARC 740 (5) Ashis Sonar and other Vs. Prescribed Authority and others 2009 (3) ARC 269 . 15. In view of the above said fact there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the order dated 11.2.2000 passed by opposite party no.1 , IXth Additional District Judge, Gonda under challenged in the present writ petition. 16. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed. 17. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are doing business from the shop in question as such the petitioner are allowed to vacate the shop in question on or before 31st December,2010 . For the said period , they will pay rent/damages as payable by them each and every month. 18. Moreover, the petitioners are directed to file an affidavit/undertaking before the Registrar of this Court within a period of one month, that on or before 31st December, 2010 they will vacate the the premises and shall hand over the same to the landlords.