JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) in the form of P.A. case No. 25 of 2004. Property in dispute is a shop. Landlord asserted that he had retired and wanted to establish the business of photo copiers, fax facility and P.C.O. in the shop in dispute. Prescribed authority/J.S.C.C. Gorakhpur allowed the release application on 25.8.2009. Against the said order petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 14 of 2009. A.D.J. Court No. 2, Gorakhpur dismissed the appeal on 23.8.2012, hence this writ petition. 2. A conditional stay order was granted on 9.11.2009 by the LAC enhancing the rent from Rs. 25/- per month to Rs. 450/-per month. The stay order is in more than five closely typed pages which is almost as long as the final judgment. It was utter waste of time. Stay order is bound to be granted to the tenant in appeal or revision filed by him and condition has also to be imposed. However, no detailed reasons are required to be given for the said purpose. The learned A.D.J. shall be careful in future. The appellate and revisional Courts shall utilise their time in final disposal of appeals and revisions rather than wasting the same in deciding simple applications like stay application etc. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner tenant has raised the following points: 1. Initially the tenant was having three shops on rent, however, he vacated two shops earlier for settling two sons of the landlord. 2. Landlord is quite aged (69 years in 2004 when release application was filed) and he was getting pension also hence his need was not bona fide. 3. Two shops in vacant state were available to the landlord; on one shop the board of Indu Electricals was fixed and the other shop which was earlier in possession of tenant Nirmala Shukla was also vacant. 4. In respect of first point the Courts below held that age of around 70-75 years cannot be said to be such an age where a person cannot start business and that getting pension is no ground to deny the need to start business. I do not find any fault with this finding. 4. In respect of first point the Courts below held that age of around 70-75 years cannot be said to be such an age where a person cannot start business and that getting pension is no ground to deny the need to start business. I do not find any fault with this finding. Unless someone is around 85 years of age, it cannot be said that he cannot start a business which does not require much physical activity. 5. In respect of allegation of two shops having earlier been vacated by the tenant the Courts below held that those two shops were in tenancy occupation of other tenants and not the petitioner. In any case in those two shops two sons of landlord are doing business. 6. As far as the shops in tenancy occupation of Indu Electricals and Nirmala Shukla are concerned Courts below held that those tenants had not vacated the shops and litigation in between landlord and those tenants was going on. 7. In respect of comparative hardship Court below found that tenant was having a house which was adjacent to the road and adjacent to the tenanted accommodation and tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation. 8. I do not find least error in the above findings. 9. One more point was argued by the learned counsel that initially landlord in the space available beneath the stair case started the business of P.C.O. but it failed. In this regard landlord asserted that the space was extremely small hardly three or four feet wide hence he could not carry on the business properly and in case shop in dispute which is adjacent to that portion is vacated then he will combine both the portions and the shop so formed will be of good dimensions and suitable for business. On this count also I find the version of the landlord to be quite genuine and bona fide. 10. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. 11. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that : 1. Within six weeks from today petitioner tenant files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords-respondents. 2. 11. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that : 1. Within six weeks from today petitioner tenant files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords-respondents. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/-(at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within six weeks before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. 12. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants-petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court after six weeks. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 6,000/- are not deposited within six weeks then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month since after six weeks till the date of actual vacation. 13. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 6,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application under Section 23 of the Act. ——————