JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 18.7.2011 and 2.2.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority in a proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner is tenant of a shop for release of which need was set up by the landlord to establish his son Aamir Sarfaraz. The release application was filed in the year 2007 stating therein that Aamir Sarfaraz was unemployed and landlord wanted to establish his son in an independent business of general merchant. It was stated that his son is carrying on general merchandise business on a cycle. The petitioner is keeping the shop closed as he has started his business in the name of M/s. Raju Associates for sale of cement & iron rods from a shop at Shivapuram, National Highway, Bareilly Road, Civil Lines, Rampur. 3. The release was contested on the ground that Aamir Sarfaraz, son of the landlord is helping the landlord in his cloth business in a shop at Bazar Mestanganj. He has no experience of general merchandise business. The shop which exist in Civil Lines in the name of M/s Raju Associates is in the proprietorship of Romana wife of the tenant. The petitioner is carrying on sale of cement only from the shop in question. 4. It is further submitted that earlier a release application P.A. Case No. 10 of 2003 was filed by the landlord and his brother Imtyaaz Hussain jointly for release of the shop occupied by one Zahir Ahmad Samshi. The said shop was released in favour of both the applicants namely the landlord and his brother to establish their sons in business. They had divided it into two parts and a portion has been given on rent to one Sardar Hussain. Another portion of the shop is still lying vacant. No family partition had taken place between the landlord and his brother Imtyaaz Hussain. No information was given to the petitioner about the alleged family partition. The need set up by the landlord is neither bonafide nor genuine but a mere desire to get the shop vacated. 5. The evidences were led by both the parties in the form of the affidavits. No information was given to the petitioner about the alleged family partition. The need set up by the landlord is neither bonafide nor genuine but a mere desire to get the shop vacated. 5. The evidences were led by both the parties in the form of the affidavits. 6. The findings on bonafide need of the landlord has been challenged mainly on the ground that the need is illusory for the reason that another shop was earlier released for the same need set up by the landlord i.e. to establish his son in General Merchant business, but the said shop was not used for the purpose for which it was released. Rather on the same need, fresh application has been filed for the shop in question by taking a false plea of family partition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that this fact itself is sufficient to throw the release application in paper basket. There cannot be any need more so the genuine one. 8. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner has been considered in light of the documents on record. 9. A perusal of the release application indicates that a definite stand has been taken by the applicant landlord in paragraphs 6' & 7' of the release application regarding the family partition between him and his brother which took place on 2.4.2008. It is stated therein that in the oral partition, the shop which was earlier released came in the share of his brother and the shop in question fell in his share. An oral information was given to the petitioner in the year 2008 itself and since then the petitioner is tendering the rent to the applicant landlord namely Sarfaraz Hussain. The earlier vacated shop is in exclusive occupation and possession of his brother Imtyaaj Hussain and his son. The applicant and his son have on concern with the said shop. 10. To this paragraph of the release application, the petitioner has made a bald denial in paragraphs 6' and 7' of his reply to the release application. 11. Further in the additional plea in paragraph 21' of the aforesaid reply to the release application, the assertion of the petitioner is that the shop which was released in P.A. Case No. 10 of 2003 is a big shop, it has been divided into two parts. 11. Further in the additional plea in paragraph 21' of the aforesaid reply to the release application, the assertion of the petitioner is that the shop which was released in P.A. Case No. 10 of 2003 is a big shop, it has been divided into two parts. One portion has been given to one Sri Sardar Hussain who is doing "Parchoon" business over there and another portion is lying vacant. 12. The submission is that the plea of partition between the applicant and his brother Imtyaaj Hussain is false. No information has been given to the petitioner rather earlier release order has been misused. In case, there was a genuine need, the sons of both the brothers must have been doing business in the shop which was released for their need. The landlord herein has not taken a stand that he had made any effort to establish his son in the shop released in the year 2008. 13. In replication, the applicant had categorically denied the contention of the petitioner that the shop which was earlier released is in occupation of Sardar Hussain, a new tenant. It was categorically stated in paragraph 10' of the replication affidavit of the landlord's son Aamir Sarfaraz filed on 26.5.2010 that the said shop is in occupation of Imtyaaz Hussain and his son. They are in exclusive ownership and possession over the said shop. One portion of the shop is being used for keeping two wheelers by the brother of the applicant and in another portion, Amber Imtyaaz, son of Imtyaaz Hussain is doing "Parchoon" business. 14. Imtyaaz Hussain brother of applicant landlord had filed an affidavit on 26.8.2010 in favour of the landlord and stating therein that an oral partition had occurred between him and the applicant on 2.4.2008. The shop which was released earlier came in his share and he is in exclusive use and possession of the same. Thus, the fact of oral partition has been established by the applicant landlord by filing his affidavit and the affidavit of his brother and son. 15. It is admitted fact between the parties that the first release application was filed in the year 2003 for the need of sons of two brothers namely Sarfaraz Hussain (the applicant herein) and Imtyaaz Hussain (his brother). 15. It is admitted fact between the parties that the first release application was filed in the year 2003 for the need of sons of two brothers namely Sarfaraz Hussain (the applicant herein) and Imtyaaz Hussain (his brother). But a family partition has been arrived between two brothers in the year 2008 and the shop which earlier released came in the share of one brother Imtyaaz Hussain. The petitioner has neither disputed the fact of occupation of the shop by brother of the applicant nor has been able to establish by leading cogent evidence that half portion of the said shop is in occupation of a tenant namely Sardar Hussain as asserted by him in his reply. There is no categorical denial to paragraphs 6' & 7' of the release application regarding partition and the shop being in exclusive occupation of Imtyaaz Hussain, brother of the applicant. 16. The Prescribed Authority has recorded a categorical finding that the applicant was receiving rent of the shop in question from the petitioner and this fact has never been disputed by the petitioner, though he has stated that he had got no information about partition. Merely because earlier the shop was released for joint need of landlord's son and son of his brother, the present release application cannot be rejected. The present landlord cannot be forced to fight with his brother to establish his son and not to arrive at a family partition. The categorical assertion of oral family partition having given effect to by the co-owners, could not be challenged by the petitioner by leading cogent evidence. Both the courts below have rightly believed the fact of partition and thereby arriving at a finding on bonafide need of the landlord. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the bonafide need of the landlord. 17. On comparative hardship, both the courts below have recorded that the petitioner is carrying out business of cement & iron rods at a large scale in the name of M/s Raju Associates from the shop in Shivapuram Colony. The petitioner submits that the proprietor of the said business is his wife. The business being carried on by the petitioner in the shop in question is also of sale of cement. Whereas the applicant has no other alternate place to establish his son. The petitioner submits that the proprietor of the said business is his wife. The business being carried on by the petitioner in the shop in question is also of sale of cement. Whereas the applicant has no other alternate place to establish his son. Considering this fact, the courts below are justified in recording that the landlord would suffer greater hardship in case of rejection of the release application. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity in the findings of fact by both the courts below. No interference is required. 19. The writ petition is dismissed. 20. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be granted a reasonable time to remove his belongings from the shop in question. 21. To this submission, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection. It is, therefore, provided: - (i) The petitioner shall file an undertaking within three weeks before the Prescribed Authority that he would vacate the premises in question on or before 30th April, 2016. (ii) In case of failure to file undertaking within the time given above or vacate the premises in question within the period provided hereinabove, appropriate proceedings for eviction of the petitioner shall be undertaken.