Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Shri M. Saeed, learned counsel for the landlord petitioner and Shri B.K. Saxena, learned counsel for substituted legal representatives of original tenant respondents. 2. It appears that original file of the writ petition was misplaced. On the first page of the order sheet the following report of the office dated 02.8.2011 is there. 3. It is submitted that this writ petition is re-constructed vide Hon'ble Senior Judge order dated 01.8.2011. 4. Petitioner landlady filed release application against original respondent Dr. Suryakant Tripathi since deceased and survived by legal representatives, under Section 21 of U.P. Act of 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need in the form of P.A. Case no. 14 of 1996, Ram Pyaree vs. Dr. Surya Kumar Trivedi. Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge Senior Division Unnao allowed the release application on 24.7.1998. Against the said order original tenant respondent filed civil appeal no. 61 of 1998. Second Additional District Judge Unnao through judgment and order dated 07.12.2000 allowed the appeal set aside the order of the prescribed authority and rejected the release application of the petitioner land-lady, hence, this writ petition. 5. Accommodation in dispute consists of two shops and one room. Rent is Rs.1300/- per month. The tenant was running his clinic in the accommodation in dispute and was also selling medicines. Land-lady petitioner asserted that she required the accommodation for settling her husband and three sons in business, her husband was carrying on business of making and selling iron rods and grills etc. from tenanted shop and all the three sons were unemployed. The tenant pointed out that land-lady possessed another house bearing no. 472 situate in Mohalla Adarsh Nagar, Unnao and there were two shops in the said house. Land-lady in her affidavit filed on 12.01.1998 before the prescribed authority copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition stated that in one of the said shops one of his sons Anant lal started a business but as the same was situate away from the "abadi" of the area in question, hence, the business could not flourish and it had to be closed. In para 8 of the said affidavit it was categorically stated that one of the shops was vacant and if the tenant agreed, land-lady was ready to let out the said shop to the tenant. In para 8 of the said affidavit it was categorically stated that one of the shops was vacant and if the tenant agreed, land-lady was ready to let out the said shop to the tenant. However, the tenant did not show any interest in the said offer. During pendency of appeal land-lady sold the house containing the said shops. Thereafter land-lady got the release application amended in the appeal and add para 8(a) to the release application, stating therein that under financial constraints she had to sell the house no. 472 Adarsh Nagar on 30.10.98 and the sale considerations which she received was utilized in paying off the debt and investing in the shop of her husband. 6. The Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and rejected the release application mainly on the following points ; - (i) husband of the landlady was carrying on business from a tenanted shop. (ii) one of the sons of the land-lady had got a job in another city. (iii) the sons of the land-lady were assisting their father in the business and the age of the elder son was 30 years, hence, age of the father must be more that 50 years and a person of 50 years or more can not sit on the shop from morning till evening. (iv) It was no-where stated that husband would vacate the tenanted shop. (v) the house in which another shop was available was sold by the land-lady. In my opinion all the findings are patently erroneous in law. As far as first point is concerned, availability of a tenanted accommodation is absolutely no ground to reject the release application. In Yadvendra Arya vs. M.K. Gupta AIR 2008 Supreme Court (773) : 2008 (1) ARC 322 and Sushila vs. A.D.J. AIR 2003 Supreme court 780 : 2003 (1) ARC 356 it has been held that every land-lord and every adult member of the family of land-lord is entitled to do separate business and sons can not be compelled to work with the father. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Khaitan vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatoon A.I.,R. 1995 Supreme Court 576 that it is not necessary to state precise nature of business to be started in release application on the ground of bona-fine need. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Khaitan vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatoon A.I.,R. 1995 Supreme Court 576 that it is not necessary to state precise nature of business to be started in release application on the ground of bona-fine need. In AIR 2002 Supreme Court 200 G.C. Kapoor vs. A.D.J. it has been held that it is not necessary that one must have experience in order to start some business. In A.G. Nambiar vs. K. Raghavan AIR 1998, Supreme Court 3146 it has been held that an alternative accommodation available to landlord but not suitable for business to be established by him is not be to considered while deciding his bonafide need. 7. In A.I.R. 1999 Supreme court 3089 Ram Kubai vs. H.D. Chowdak it has been held that if the son of the landlord for whose need release application is filed is unemployed at the time of filing of release application then the subsequent job does not mitigate against bona-fides as unemployed son can not be asked either to remain idle or work with father, mother or brother. Same thing has been held in Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Shrivastava AIR 2001 Supreme court 803. 8. In Chandrika Prasad vs. Umesh Kumar Varma AIR 2002 Supreme court 108 it has been held that if an accommodation which is away from the main road is available to the landlord or the person for whose need release application is filed, it is no ground to reject release application for more appropriate accommodation situate on the main road. 9. As far as the question of selling house no. 472 is concerned, firstly landlady asserted that under financial constraints it was sold; secondly a shop situate in the said house was earlier offered by the land-lady to the tenant who did not accept the said offer meaning thereby that the tenanted accommodation in dispute was much more beneficial than the said shop. 10. The finding of the lower appellate court that third son of landlord was studying hence his need was not to be considered is also erroneous in law as land-lady had stated that her third son was not much interested in the studies. There is no such rule that until and unless a person completes education up to a particular level he can not start a business. 11. There is no such rule that until and unless a person completes education up to a particular level he can not start a business. 11. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that land-lady fully proved her bona-fide need and sale of a house during pendency of the appeal did not make any difference thereupon. 12. As far as comparative hardship is concerned the trial Court/ prescribed authority had held that tenant was having his own house in which he could establish his clinic and his financial condition was quite good. Moreover the tenant did not show that he made any effort to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This fact is sufficient to tilt the balance of hardship against the tenant vide Shamshad Ahmad vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj AIR 2008(Supp) S.C. 526 (para 48) : 2008 (3) ARC 532)and B.C. Bhutada vs. G.R. Mundada AIR 2003 S.C. 2713 : 2005 (2) ARC 899 13. The lower appellate court noted that 2 sons of the tenant were also assisting him in his medical practice. It was not stated whether they were doctors or not. 14. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the findings of the lower appellate court on both the points of bona-fide need and comparative hardship are patently erroneous in law and liable to be set-aside. The landlord fully proved her bona-fide need the sale of a house during pendency of appeal did not mitigate against that. 15. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Judgment and order passed by the lower appeallate court is set-aside. Judgment and order passed by the Trial Court /Prescribed authority allowing the release application is restored. 16. Tenants-respondents are granted six months time to vacate provided that:- 1. Within one month from today tenants file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-petitioner. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-respondents to vacate, they are required to pay Rs.15000/-( at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-petitioner. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-respondents to vacate, they are required to pay Rs.15000/-( at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-petitioner. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants-respondents shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs.15000/- are not deposited within one month then tenants-respondents shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 17. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs.15000/- accommodation in dispute is not vacated within six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. 18. 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 initiate execution proceedings under Section 23 of the Act. _________________