Shabihul Hasnain, J.;- A mention was was made in the morning seeking permission for filing of the fresh writ petition, today. It was also mentioned that there is urgency in the matter and the petition may be entertained today, itself. The permission was granted and this is how, the writ petition has come before this Court today. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Adil Khan. It is a rent petition. The petitioners have lost from both the Courts. There are concurrent findings of fact. The bona-fide need of the land lord has been upheld and the petitioners' eviction has been ordered. The prescribed authority passed the order for delivery of possession, in which warrants have been issued, hence the urgency. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan has passionately argued for quite some time. He has argued that the need of the land lord is not bona-fide and genuine; the orders passed by the lower courts are factually incorrect; and the Court may stay their eviction. The main question involved in this petition rests upon the need of the land lord. Opposite parties no. 2 to 67 had made an application for release of the shop in their favour, which was contested to by filing of the written statement by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties, have allowed the application and thus released the shop in question in favour of the opposite parties. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the appeal, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 7.1.2012. The petitioners could not substantiate their case before the Courts below and since the petitioners have lost from both the Courts; there are concurrent findings of fact based on entire facts and circumstances of the case and the bona-fide need of the land lord has been decided in favour of opposite parties no. 2 to 7, the petitioners' eviction has rightly been ordered. After hearing the arguments, the Court put a question as to what efforts have been made by the petitioners to find any alternative space for his business. The petitioners could not satisfy the Court. In fact, it appears that no attempt at all, has ever been made by them in this regard. After hearing the arguments, the Court put a question as to what efforts have been made by the petitioners to find any alternative space for his business. The petitioners could not satisfy the Court. In fact, it appears that no attempt at all, has ever been made by them in this regard. Any law whatsoever in India, can not give any right to any person, to eventually try to grab the property in the garb of benevolent legislation like the present one namely U.P. Urban Building(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Right to property though not a fundamental right, still remains constitutional right and even the State with the concept of eminent domain cannot be allowed to take away the property of any individual even in the interest of the State without compensation. It means that the right to hold property exists and respected by the Constitution. If a person for the last fifty five years resides in a building and carries on business, it is incumbent upon him to make some effort to give back the property to the real owner in due course of time. The total lack of sincere efforts on the part of a tenant to give back the possession, gives rise to the suspicion in the mind of the Court that he is trying to take shelter of benevolent and helpful legislation, which was conceived under the Scheme of Social, Economic and Political Justice. The rent control Act or for that matter any act, was envisaged to bring about some semblance of equality and help to the needy person who would have been otherwise without roof on their head. However, it was never the intention of the legislature to deprive anybody of his property even if the property was large enough or more than the requirement of his family etc. The idea of giving away of some part of property of a person on rent, who has more than his requirement, was a temporary one. It was never meant that once the property is given in tenancy; the person giving it, has to loose the same. Unfortunately, the intention of the legislature has been misinterpreted, misused and also abused in such a manner that it has become a fear in the mind of the landlord that once the property has been given under tenancy, it will never come back to him. Unfortunately, the intention of the legislature has been misinterpreted, misused and also abused in such a manner that it has become a fear in the mind of the landlord that once the property has been given under tenancy, it will never come back to him. The Courts have to be aware of these rising dissatisfaction amongst the people of this country. The moment, society looses faith that they are not going to get justice, a dangerous evolution in the mind of the citizen of this country takes place. The faith should remain that there is system which will work and ultimately give justice. This hope is heightened when the cases come to the highest court of the land i.e. High Court. The Court while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not shirk away its responsibility that the justice is done ultimately. Sometime, they have to rise above the narrow interpretation and uncanny arguments of the counsel, who naturally are capable of giving many interpretations to the statute. The Courts have to interpret the statute in the manner which is beneficial to the person who is aggrieved. I am, therefore, not convinced that the petition deserves any consideration. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. After the petition was dismissed, Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate had requested that some time may be granted by this Court to vacate the premises. The Court required undertaking to be given by the petitioner concerned and on the direction of the Court, the petitioner was summoned in person. Sri Bhagwan Das-petitioner No.2, who is the eldest brother of petitioner No.1 and 3 is present before this Court. He has made a statement that he is the eldest brother and he is making a statement on behalf of his younger brothers Kishore and Shivam, who also work with him. They are petitioner no. 1 and 2 to this petition. He has also stated that his undertaking will bind him as well as the two younger brothers. He undertakes before this Court to vacate the premises in question within a maximum period of nine months from today. This date will expire on 15.10.2012. The petitioners will give clear vacant possession of the property to the landlord without creating any third party interest or alienating the property in dispute or creating any encumbrance. He also undertakes to pay monthly rent. This date will expire on 15.10.2012. The petitioners will give clear vacant possession of the property to the landlord without creating any third party interest or alienating the property in dispute or creating any encumbrance. He also undertakes to pay monthly rent. This undertaking has been given in open Court in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan. It is provided that in case this undertaking is violated, the opposite party No.s 2 to 7 shall have right to approach this Court by way of an application informing about violation of the undertaking. The dismissal of the writ petition or finality of the judgment, will not be a hindrance in making the application. Such an application is being allowed under the inherent powers of this Court. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioners shall not be evicted till 15.10.2012.