Pankaj Mithal, J.;- Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the land-lord against the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 10.8.2009 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 47 of 2007 arising from the proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. The petitioner is the owner and the land-lord of the shop in dispute no. 126 K.P. Kakkar road, Allahabad. Respondent no. 1 Sasta Sahitya Mandal is a tenant in the said shop and respondent no. 2 is the secretary of Sasta Sahitya Mandal. 4. The shop in dispute measures about 16'x16' ft though there is slight variation in dimension as per report of the Advocate Commissioner on record. Petitioner land-lord applied for release of the aforesaid shop under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act in the year 1998 on the ground that the shop is bonafidely needed by him for expansion of his business and for the business purpose of his father Gopi Nath Agrawal and elder son Subodh. During the pendency of the proceedings, as the second son of the land-lord completed his graduation in the year 2005, an affidavit was also brought on record setting up his business need also. The release application after contest was allowed by the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 1.2.2007 only on the need of the two sons of the land-lord. 5. Aggrieved by the order of release passed by the prescribed authority an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Additional District Judge. In appeal the need of the two sons has been upheld to be genuine and bonafide as also finding with regard to comparative hardship. However, the appellate authority allowed the appeal in part only and directed for release of half of the shop only and the other half has been permitted to be retained by the tenants. 6. It is against the partial release allowed by the lower appellate court that the land-lord has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. However, the appellate authority allowed the appeal in part only and directed for release of half of the shop only and the other half has been permitted to be retained by the tenants. 6. It is against the partial release allowed by the lower appellate court that the land-lord has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the two courts have found the need of the two sons to be genuine and bonafide, it was not open for the appellate authority to have acted as a rationing authority and to grant only partial release of the shop. 8. Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the respondents to counter the above submission has submitted that the respondents are tenant in the shop in dispute since 1941 and in view of the fact that the land-lord is having an adjoining shop, no illegality has been committed by the appellate court in allowing the partial release which actually serves the purpose of both the parties. 9. It may be noted that the respondents tenants have not preferred any petition against the impugned judgment and order of the appellate authority dated 10.8.2009 meaning thereby that they have accepted the same and the findings returned by the appellate authority. The appellate authority upholding the order of the release passed by the prescribed authority has held the need of the two sons of the land lord to be genuine and bonafide. The comparative hardship has also been found in favour of the land lord. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal was liable to the dismissed and there was no occasion for releasing the shop in part particularly when no finding has been recorded by the appellate authority that the partial release would suffice the purpose and would satisfy the need of the two sons of the land lord. 11. A perusal of the judgment reveals that no such finding has been recorded by the lower appellate court. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the release of the partial accommodation can not be sustained. The writ petition as such deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitle to release of the entire shop. 13. 11. A perusal of the judgment reveals that no such finding has been recorded by the lower appellate court. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the release of the partial accommodation can not be sustained. The writ petition as such deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitle to release of the entire shop. 13. In the end Sri Dayal prays that some reasonable time may be allowed to the tenants to vacate the shop in dispute so that the old business publication and sale of books can be shifted smoothly. Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection, if some fair and reasonable time is granted. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The release application of the land lord for the shop in entirety stands allowed. Judgment and order of the appellate court dated 10.8.2009 stands modified to that extent. Respondents tenants are allowed six months time to vacate the shop in dispute provided an undertaking is filed before the prescribed authority within a period of three weeks from today that the respondents would vacate the shop in dispute and give peaceful possession of the same to the land lord within a period of six months from today and would clear all arrears of rent, if any, and continue to pay rent as it is for the aforesaid period.