Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for petitioner; and, Sri M.K. Gupta, Advocate, and Sri Alok Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsels for respondents. 2. This is tenant's writ petition facing ejectment from the shop situated at Megha Chowk Bazaar, Mathura which is in his tenancy, but, by means of impugned orders has been released in favour of respondent-landlord. 3. Respondent filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") seeking release of disputed accommodation on the ground of personal need so as to start business of Provisional Store. The application is dated 16.12.2005 registered as P.A. Case No. 44 of 2005 before Prescribed Authority, Mathura. Petitioner contested the same by filing his written statement dated 17.4.2008 stating specifically that landlord is not residing at Mathura but is actually settled at Delhi having his address at 257-D, Nand Nagari in front of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi. He has two children; son Rahul and daughter Parul. Both are employed in the bank on higher position and both are unmarried. Besides, the landlord himself is doing job of Commission Agent and has two other residences at Delhi which are let out. Trial Court allowed the application and the said order has been confirmed in Appeal by Appellate Court's order dated 9.9.2010. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that landlord's own brother Suresh Chandra Sharma gave affidavit deposing that landlord is permanently settled at Delhi doing the job of Commission Agent, but subsequently he retracted by filing another affidavit. The Court has recorded finding that contrary affidavits have been filed by both the sides and, therefore, statement of witnesses are not reliable but having said so, it has not considered the question as to whether landlord has any residential accommodation at New Delhi and is permanently settled threat or not, particularly in view of the fact that on this aspect there was no clear rebuttal on the part of landlord. Attention of this Court is drawn to the Substitution Application filed before Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") in a Review Application against allotment of one shop and therein landlord Gulab Chand Sharma gave his address as GTB Park, Ultrasound 257-D, Pocket-E, in front of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. Same address has been given in the amended plaint filed in Suit No. 570 of 1994 contested between one Vishwanath Upadhyay and family members of respondent-landlord, Gulab Chand Sharma, in which he was also impleaded as defendant no. 5. 5. Landlord has shown his age in Release Application being 54. His Children are well settled. He has stated in para 4 of Release Application that he is residing on upper portion of shop but could adduce no evidence to support his statement. On the contrary, documents are on record to demonstrate that he is settled at Delhi, that too in a posh colony and, therefore, story set up by him about commencing a business in a small shop, which is in the tenancy of petitioner, is nothing but a pretext to get the shop vacated and thereafter to let out the same for much higher rent or for other purposes. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent in the present case. Learned counsel appearing for respondent sought to support the impugned judgments referring to the reasons stated therein. 7. This Court finds that Courts below have proceeded as if onus lies upon tenant to demonstrate that need of landlord is not genuine or that he has an alternative accommodation to commence his business. Landlord admitted that he is staying at Delhi but claimed that it is only a temporary stay. It is not stated anywhere as to when he went to Delhi, what is the duration of his stay thereat, when the residential accommodation was acquired thereat, whether his children studied at Delhi and at that time whether he was residing at Delhi or at Mathura and when he came back to Mathura to stay thereat. Even his claim that he is residing in upper portion of shop in question has not been substantiated in any manner. Even his claim that he is residing in upper portion of shop in question has not been substantiated in any manner. Amin's report, a copy whereof is Annexure 9 to writ petition, shows that at the time of his inspection, he found that shop in question was run by petitioner and on the upper portion, some tenant was there. 8. It is true that landlord is always free to decide the place, city etc. for his stay, and, if he has several properties, to choose any place for his residence, business etc. but this choice of landlord must be real, substantive and bona fide and not fanciful. In the present case, it cannot be doubted that landlord possess an old property at Mathura but has been residing at Delhi which, according to him, is a temporary stay. However, for how long this temporary stay has continued, whether it commenced when his children were School going or not and if so, whether they were day scholars residing along with their parents at Delhi or otherwise, are some of the necessary facts which may demonstrate whether his contention that he is residing or intend to reside at Mathura and wants to commence a business thereat in the shop in question is genuine, bona fide or not. In a very casual and cursory manner, Courts below have looked into this matter, particularly when the residential address of landlord in respect to a posh locality of Delhi was already available and landlord, as such, did not deny his residing thereat. He claims that it is only temporary stay. The factum that landlord his residing at Delhi made it more necessary to examine whether this stay is actually temporary or is being termed so, though substantially crossing the edge of the term "temporary". The relevant aspects in this matter, which would have been helpful to arrive at a correct conclusion thereon, unfortunately, have not been looked into by both the Courts below. 9. In the result, I am of the view that matter need be examined afresh by Trial Court and, if necessary, by permitting the parties to lead further or fresh evidence, as the case may be. 10. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgments and orders dated 31.7.2008 and 9.9.2010 (Annexures 5 and 12 to the writ petition) are hereby set aside. 11. 10. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgments and orders dated 31.7.2008 and 9.9.2010 (Annexures 5 and 12 to the writ petition) are hereby set aside. 11. Matter is remanded to Trial Court to consider respondent's Release Application afresh in the light of observations made above and in accordance with law. It shall, however, proceed with the matter expeditiously and endeavor to conclude it within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to other business of the Court. _____________