JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Narendra Mohan and Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsels on behalf of respondent is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant's petition. The release application was filed for the need of the shop in which the tenant is doing shoe business. Earlier, the landlord has filed an application in the year 1999 for release of the same shop setting up his need for business of electrical goods. The matter has travelled up to this Court and only a portion of the shop 4 and 1/2 ft. width x 22 ft. depth has been released in favour of the landlord on 25.9.2008. 3. After a period of two years in the year 2010 the landlord has moved another release application stating therein that he has not been able to establish the electrical goods business because of insufficient space. The landlord is carrying out sewing machine business and for the same need which was set up in 1999, the present release application was pressed. 4. The petitioner contested the release application on the ground that the landlord had not used the released portion of the shop in question for the need set up by him in the year 1999. Further submission is that for the same need, release application after a period of two years is not maintainable. 5. Both the courts below found that part release of the portion of the shop in question is insufficient for electrical business i.e. Cooler, TV etc. which was earlier set up by the landlord and therefore, the sewing machine business was being run by the landlord. Over the period of years, the landlord wants to expand his business and he cannot be asked to continue it in the same manner. 6. It was further found that there are three houses in the name of mother of the tenant and in one of the houses there exists three shops. The petitioner tenant does not dispute this fact. However, he has submitted that two shops have been occupied by his brothers and he cannot shift his business over there. But from the said averment, one shop is still left and there is no assertion with regard to that shop in the ownership of the tenant's mother. The petitioner tenant does not dispute this fact. However, he has submitted that two shops have been occupied by his brothers and he cannot shift his business over there. But from the said averment, one shop is still left and there is no assertion with regard to that shop in the ownership of the tenant's mother. The Court below has found that the tenant would not suffer any hardship in case he is evicted. 7. Finding on bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Court below are based on evidence. No perversity can be shown. No interference is required. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. 9. Lastly, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted a reasonable time to shift his belongings to another place. To this prayer, Sri Narendra Mohan and Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsels for the respondent have no objection. 10. Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not paid rent for the last one and half year. To this statement, Sri Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner replied that he has no instructions. 11. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall file an undertaking within three weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority in the form of affidavit that he will vacate the premises on or before 30.4.2016 and will tender the entire arrears of rent and shall also pay rent each month regularly till the date of vacation of the shop or till 30.4.2016 whichever occurs earlier. In case, the petitioner fails to file the undertaking within the time given above or does not vacate the premises within the period provided or deviates from his undertaking, proceedings for his eviction shall be initiated.