JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for respondent. 2. This is a tenant's writ petition, who has lost in both the courts below. The respondent-landlord filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") , seeking release of shop in dispute, which is under tenancy of petitioner-tenant. The Prescribed Authority, initially, rejected application vide order dated 30.09.1999, whereagainst appeal was filed before District Judge, Mathura. During pendency of appeal the landlord set up new case of requirement of his son, whereupon the Lower Appellate Court required Trial Court to record its finding and sent the matter to Trial Court. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 22.01.2005 found that need set up by landlord in respect of his son is genuine and bona fide and its findings were forwarded to Lower Appellate Court. In view of aforesaid order the matter was considered by Lower Appellate Court and setting aside Prescribed Authority's order dated 30.09.1999, it has confirmed the findings recorded by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 22.01.2005 and while allowing release application the Lower Appellate Court has directed petitioner-tenant to vacate the accommodation in question. 3. During course of argument, it is borne out from record that there is another accommodation/shop No. 1/80, which is lying vacant with landlord. The landlord stated that the said shop was not suitable for the purpose of business of his son which he intends to commence and offered the said shop to petitioner-tenant but the tenant declined to accept the said offer and thereafter appeal was allowed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2006. 4. Before this Court the matter was again taken up with respect to aforesaid offer. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for respondent-landlord, after receiving instructions, made a statement that aforesaid offer is still open and if petitioner-tenant is ready, possession of shop No. 1/80 would be handed over to him so that he may vacate the shop in question. 5. Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate appearing for petitioner, stated that petitioner is ready to accept the said offer. 6. 5. Sri Dinesh Kumar, Advocate appearing for petitioner, stated that petitioner is ready to accept the said offer. 6. In view of the statements advanced by both the counsels for the parties, after receiving instructions, this writ petition is disposed of finally with modification in the impugned order passed by Lower Appellate Court, directing petitioner to vacate the accommodation in question, provided the respondent-landlord made him available shop No. 1/80 within 15 days from today. 7. However, the petitioner is also given liberty to? move an application within ten days, to this effect, before Prescribed Authority and under his supervision the aforesaid exchange shall be done within one month from the date of filing of such application. 8. It is also provided that in case petitioner did not abide the aforesaid exchange by completing the process of exchange within time as said above, and insist to continue to accommodation/shop in question, this writ petition shall stand dismissed with confirmation of the orders impugned in this writ petition.