Dilip Gupta, J.:- The tenants have filed this petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2011 by which the Appeal filed by the landlord for setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority reject­ing the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the shop has been allowed and a direction has been issued for eviction of the tenants. 2. The landlord had filed the application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the tenanted shop measuring 10 x 30 feet situated at Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. The need set up for the shop in the application was for es­tablishing his son Chetan Garg in an independent cloth business. The release application was contested by the tenants and it was asserted that the landlord had in his possession another vacant shop measuring 10 x 10 feet which was not disclosed in the release application. It was also asserted that the son of the landlord did not bona fide require the shop. The landlord, however, asserted that the room measuring 10 x 10 feet pointed out by the tenants was a godown and not a shop. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, a shop on the first floor of the building in the tenancy of M/s. Dev Steel fell vacant. The tenants moved an Amendment Application on 25th May, 2010 for bringing this fact on record in the reply to the release application but the Prescribed Authority rejected the Amendment Application observing that this fact will be considered at the time of hearing of the application. 3. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 8th June, 2010 rejected the release application filed by the landlord on the ground that the son of the landlord could establish his business from the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel and also from the shop on the ground floor measuring 10 x 10 feet. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an Appeal under section 22 of the Act which has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2011. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an Appeal under section 22 of the Act which has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2011. The Appellate Court noticed the contention of the landlord that the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel was not suitable for doing business and the other shop pointed out by the tenants measuring 10 x 10 feet was actually a godown and not a shop. The Appellate Court also observed that the landlord had made an offer to the tenants to occupy the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel as also the godown measuring 10 x 10 feet but this offer was not accepted by the tenants. The Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority holding that the landlord bona fide required the shop in dispute for establishing his son in business with option to the tenants, should they so de­sire, to take possession of the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel and the godown measuring 10 x 10 feet. 5. When the writ petition was taken up, this offer was again made by the landlord to the tenants. A Supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the ten­ants suggesting an alternative offer that they may be permitted to retain 4 x 30 feet of the disputed shop and the godown but this alternative suggestion of the tenants has not been accepted by the landlord. The matter has, accordingly, been heard on merits. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that when the shop on the first floor was vacated by M/s. Dev Steel in April, 2010, it was necessary for the landlord to bring this fact on record but the landlord kept quiet and in fact an Amendment Application was also moved by the tenants in May, 2010 for bringing this fact to the notice of the Prescribed Authority but the application was rejected with the observation that this issue will be considered at the time of hearing of the application. It is his submission that in such circumstances, when there was a vacant shop available to the landlord and it was not stated by the landlord that this shop was not suitable for doing business, the release application should have been rejected and in fact was rejected by the Prescribed Authority but the Appellate Authority, without correctly appreciating the decision of the Supreme Court in Maqboolunnisa v. Mohd. Saleha Quaraishi 1998 (2) ARC 567 (SC), has allowed the Appeal. He, therefore, submits that the Appellate Court committed an illegality in allowing the Appeal. It is also his submission that it cannot be said that the landlord bona fide required the shop when two va­cant shops were available to the landlord. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Prescribed Authority committed no illegality in rejecting the Amendment Application and since the shop situated on the first floor was not suitable, for doing business which is also admitted to the tenants as they did not accept the offer made by the landlord in the Appeal and nor have they ac­cepted the offer made in this Court, it cannot be asserted by the tenants that the landlord should establish his son in business from the shop on the first floor and nor is the godown suitable for doing business. He, therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the landlord should have informed the Prescribed Authority that M/s. Dev Steel had vacated the shop on the first floor of the building and if such information was not given, the release application should have been rejected by the Appellate Authority as has been held by the Supreme Court in Maqboolunnisa (supra). According to the landlord the shop was vacated by M/s. Dev Steel in May, 2010 while according to the tenants it was vacated in the last week of April, 2010. It is seen that the application was filed by the landlord under sec­tion 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 23rd January, 2008. According to the landlord the shop was vacated by M/s. Dev Steel in May, 2010 while according to the tenants it was vacated in the last week of April, 2010. It is seen that the application was filed by the landlord under sec­tion 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 23rd January, 2008. The parties had led evidence and the application was ripe for hearing when the shop on the first floor was vacated by M/s. Dev Steel. The tenants had moved an Amendment Application on 26th May, 2010 to bring this fact to the notice of the Prescribed Authority but this application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority holding that this fact will be considered by it at the time of hearing and indeed the Prescribed Authority did consider this fact holding that one shop was available to the landlord on the first floor for establishing his son in business. 10. In the appeal, the landlord stated that the shop on the first floor was not suitable for doing business and he also made an offer to the tenants to take the shop on the first floor as also the godown measuring 10 x 10 feet, which ac­cording to the tenants, was also a shop. Such offer made by the landlord was not accepted by the tenants before the Appellate Court and even before this Court, the tenants have not accepted the offer. In such a situation when the tenants also do not consider the shop on the first floor suitable for business, the decision of the Supreme Court in Maqboolunnisa (supra) will not apply. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also contended that even if the offer made by the landlord for the shop on the first floor and the godown is ac­cepted by the tenants then too difficulty will arise because a notice has been is­sued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for demolition of the godown offered by the landlord as it is an unauthorised construction. Learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, stated that till date notice has not been is­sued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and this godown is part of the main building. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, stated that till date notice has not been is­sued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and this godown is part of the main building. 12. The apprehension of the petitioners can be taken care of by observing that in case notice is issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and the godown is demolished, then it will be open to the petitioners to move an appro­priate application in this petition. 13. It needs to be pointed out that learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the rent to be charged by the landlord, in the event the tenants choose to give option within one month from today for occupying the shop on the first floor vacated by M/s. Dev Steel and the godown measuring 10 x 10 feet, for the tenanted portion shall be f 1,800/- per month. 14. In the end, learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that since thte marriage of the son of the petitioner is to take place in April, 2012, the peti­tioner may not be compelled to vacate the shop till 15th May, 2012. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondent has no objection to time being granted if an undertaking is submitted by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority to this effect. 16. The tenants shall, therefore, not be compelled to vacate the shop in dispute pursuant to the judgment of the Appellate Court subject to the tenants giving an undertaking within two weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority to the following effect : 1. That the tenants shall handover peaceful possession of the shop to the landlord on or before the 15th May, 2012. 2. That the tenants shall pay damages at the rate of f 1,800/- per/month w.e.f. February, 2012 up to the date they handover the possession of the shop to the landlord. 3. That the tenants shall not induct any other person in the shop.