JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Lohia learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The release application was filed by grandfather namely Jagannath setting up need for his grand son namely Pushpendra son of Chaturbhuj to start bangle business in the shop in question. It is stated in paragraph no. 6 of the release application by the applicant/landlord that his son Chaturbhuj is residing in house no. 90, Purani Pasrat, Jhansi. On account of shortage of space in his residential house he is keeping house hold goods in shop no. 284, Sarafa Bazar, Jhansi, measurement of which is 4' x 12' feet which is in the shape of a gallery. It is further stated that it is not possible to do any business in the said portion of the property in question. 3. The release was contested by the tenant with the categorical assertion in paragraph no. 24 to 25 -A of the written statement that it is incorrect to state that shop no. 284, which is 4'X 12' feet, is in the shape of gallery rather it is situated adjacent to the shop in question and lies at the ground floor of the building which is a two storied building. One room is also constructed over shop no. 284 at the first floor. 4. It appears that on the contest of the parties, an Amin Commissioner was appointed who had inspected the property and gave his report on 17.03.2008 with a sketch map. 5. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the release application on the ground that the landlord possess alternative place for his business and he is not in need much less bona fide need of the shop in question. In the meantime, the applicant/landlord namely Jagan Nath died and in his place, Pushpendra the grandson was substituted on the basis of his will. 6. Before the Appellate Court, it was again contended by the tenant that a shop No. 284, Sarafa Bazar, Jhansi in the building in question exist in vacant possession of the landlord and the tenant is ready to shift therein for his business as it is not possible for him to get another place. The said space is being used by one son of the applicant/landlord namely Chaturbhuj, (father of Pushpendra) for keeping his house hold goods. 7. The said space is being used by one son of the applicant/landlord namely Chaturbhuj, (father of Pushpendra) for keeping his house hold goods. 7. So far as the other alternative places suggested by the tenant are concerned, finding has been recorded by Appellate Court is that shop no. 286 and 287 are in possession of the tenants, shop no. 80 and shop no. 81 are in possession of two sons of Jagannath who are doing their business. 8. Now only space left is shop no. 284, Sarafa Bazar, Jhansi. A close perusal of the description given in the Amin report dated 17.03.2008 and the map appended thereto shows that shop no. 284 is measuring 4' X 12' feet only. Inside this area there exist one stair case which goes to the first floor of the building in question. The Amin has clarified in his report that there exist one stair case in shop no. 284 which is situated at an elevated platform. Southern portion below the stair case is mostly covered space in the shape of circle whereas there is no space available on the northern side below the stair case. On the eastern side only two inch gallery is situated. The length between east and west wall inside the shop no. 284 is approximately 3 feet 10 inch. There is one door opening of this space. 9. Considering this document it cannot be said that shop no. 284, the space which exist in the building in question would be sufficient for the need of the landlord and, therefore, the release order could not have been passed by the Appellate Court. 10. Now comes the question of shifting the tenant to this portion. Considering the map and the Amin report it cannot be said that the area covered inside shop no. 284, is usable as a shop rather most of the area is covered by the stair case or lying below it. Not much area is available below the stair case which exists in a portion of the shop no. 284. In case, the tenant is allowed to occupy this space, it would create further inconvenience for the landlord as he would not be able to use the stair case freely. There is one common door in the said space which is the common access to both, the stair case and the shop. 284. In case, the tenant is allowed to occupy this space, it would create further inconvenience for the landlord as he would not be able to use the stair case freely. There is one common door in the said space which is the common access to both, the stair case and the shop. There is no other access to the stair case. 11. For all the above reasons, no interference is required. 12. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be provided a reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in his possession. 13. There is no objection to this prayer from the other side. 14. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall file an undertaking within a period of four six weeks before the Court below that he will vacate the premises in question on or before 15.11.2017. 15. In case, the petitioner fails to file the undertaking or vacate the house in question within the time given above, proceedings for his eviction may be initiated. 16. The petitioner shall regularly pay the rent as directed by the Appellate Court till the date of vacation of the tenanted accommodation. 17. The writ petition is devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Petition dismissed.