JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition is directed against the orders of release passed by the Court below in a proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The disputed property is a shop no. 86/9 measuring "7.7ft.X7.7ft." situated at ground floor of the property no. 85/7, Mohalla Sulatanpura, Agra. 3. Brief facts of the case relevant to decide the controversy in hand are that the original landlord, Sri Darshan Lal the father-in-law of the respondent-landlord inducted late Sri Ram Charan Agarwal the father of the petitioners in the shop in question. After death of Sri Darshan Lal, the tenancy devolved upon his heirs. The applicant-landlord, wife of late Ravi Kumar son of Darshan Lal filed the release application stating therein that she is owner-landlord of the shop in question. She is a widow and has no source of income. Her one son was studying in Class 5th and she requires the shop to start her business for her livelihood. The release was contested on the ground that the shop is not needed by the landlady. She has mentioned herself as the owner/landlady of the shop in question but in fact this shop was owned by Sri Darshan Lal. Five sons and other legal heirs of Sri Darshan Lal, the co-owners of the shop in question have not joined for the release. 4. The contention of the applicant-landlady that she is sole owner of the shop in question is incorrect. The shop is occupied by Sri Mohan Lal one son of the original tenant Sri Ram Charan Agrawal and he is running his business under the name and style of "M/s. Mohan General Store". This fact is well within the knowledge of the applicant-landlord and she made incorrect statement that the shop was occupied by Radhey Shyam. So far as the opposite party no. 1 Radhey Shyam is concerned, he is running his shop under the name and style of "Maharaja Diesel Spare, Generator, Alternator & Engine Parts at Railway Arch, 44-Opposite Sita Ram Market, Belanganj, Agra. After death of Ram Charan Agarwal, all his heirs became co-tenants, therefore, it cannot be said that Sri Mohan Lal was inducted as sub-tenant by his brother Radhey Shyam, the opposite party no. 1. After death of Ram Charan Agarwal, all his heirs became co-tenants, therefore, it cannot be said that Sri Mohan Lal was inducted as sub-tenant by his brother Radhey Shyam, the opposite party no. 1. The release was contested by Mohan Lal, the occupant by filing counter affidavit. 5. On the question of landlord tenant relationship, it was found by the Prescribed Authority that after death of the original landlord late Darshan Lal, a family partition has been arrived between his heirs, a copy whereof has been brought on record by the landlady. On the basis of this document it was found that the shop in question came in the share of the applicant/landlady. The opposite party no. 1 filed an application under Section 30 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for deposit of rent of the shop in question in which Smt. Guddi Devi, the applicant/landlady has been impleaded and the rent is being deposited in her name. Therefore, it is established that the owner and landlady of the shop in question is the applicant Smt. Guddi Devi. So far as inheritance of the tenancy is concerned, it was found that the shop in question was initially let out to Sri Ram Charan Agrawal by the original landlord. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 being sons of the original tenant are included in the definition of the 'tenant' under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thus the relationship of landlady and tenant is established between the parties and the opposite party no. 2 cannot be said to be sub-tenant. 6. On the bona fide need, it was found that the landlady had no other place to start his business, she needed the shop in question for her livelihood. She has a minor son to look after as her husband had expired. 7. On comparative hardship, it was found that the opposite party no. 1 will not suffer any hardship as admittedly he is doing business from another accommodation. But so far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, it was recorded that the co-tenant did not make any effort to get an alternative accommodation. In case the release is refused, the landlady would suffer more hardship than the tenant. 8. In appeal, the appellate court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority noting the paper nos. 2 is concerned, it was recorded that the co-tenant did not make any effort to get an alternative accommodation. In case the release is refused, the landlady would suffer more hardship than the tenant. 8. In appeal, the appellate court has affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority noting the paper nos. 37-Ga and 38-Ka filed by the landlady which clearly establishes the fact of family partition between her and the heirs of Sri Darshan Lal the original landlord. The landlady is sole owner and had acquired professional knowledge about the work of Beautician, Sewing-embroidery work etc. which she proposes to do in the shop in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that she would not use the shop for her own need. 9. Considering the provisions of Rule 16(2)(a)(b)(c), it was recorded by the appellate court that definitely the tenant would suffer some hardship on account of eviction but the release cannot be refused on this ground. The tenant has earned goodwill at the place in question but the goodwill is of the business of the tenant. He may put an information before the shop in question after eviction that he has shifted elsewhere. His customers would again approach him. However, in case the release is refused, the landlady would be deprived of his livelihood. She will, accordingly, suffer greater hardship than the tenant. 10. These findings are challenged by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the release was not maintainable at the instance of the applicant/landlady. She has failed to establish that she was the sole owner to the shop in question. Sri Mohan Lal has succeeded tenancy from his father and is doing business under the name and style of "Mohan General Store", whereas the landlords/co-owners have several shops and properties in Agra City. The adjacent shop no. 86/11 still vacant. 11. The Court below had erroneously recorded on the basis of paper no. 37-Ga and 38-Ka that the family settlement is proved. The requirement of Rule 16 has not been given due consideration and the hardship of Sri Mohan Lal, the sitting tenant has not been given consideration at all. 12. Testing these submissions in the light of the material on record, it is found that the applicant-landlady is the wife of Sri Ravi Kumar son of the original landlord Sri Darshan Lal. 12. Testing these submissions in the light of the material on record, it is found that the applicant-landlady is the wife of Sri Ravi Kumar son of the original landlord Sri Darshan Lal. Her husband has died and she has no other place of business. She has to look after her minor son and therefore, was under constrain to file the release application in the year 2010. 13. So far as the family partition is concerned, there is nothing on record to disprove this fact. Moreover, after an arrangement is made between the heirs of the original landlord Sri Darshan Lal and no other co-owner had come-forward to object the release, it would not be open for the tenant to raise any objection against the family settlement. The settlement is between the family members of the original landlord Sri Darshan Lal and admittedly no one has come-forward to object the release. This ground of challenge, therefore, is without any force. There is nothing on record to suggest that the adjacent shop no. 86/11 which is stated to be vacant is in the ownership of the landlady and is in her vacant possession. Hence, this assertion cannot be looked into that too when raised for the first time in the present writ petition without any other material on record. 14. So far as the question consideration of requirement of Rule 16 is concerned, it is found that the need set up by the landlady in the release application is bona fide. 15. Fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 provides that the Rent Controller Authority shall take note of the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose all the factors have to be taken into consideration. The question of goodwill as raised by the petitioner has been considered by the appellate court. However, upon comparison of likely hardship of both the landlady and the tenant, it was found that admittedly the tenant would suffer some hardship but in case the release is refused, the landlady will be deprived of his livelihood as she will not be able to start her business. She has no other source of livelihood. The comparative hardship of the parties, therefore, rightly tilted in favour of the landlady. 16. She has no other source of livelihood. The comparative hardship of the parties, therefore, rightly tilted in favour of the landlady. 16. No other point has been pressed. 17. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that there is no justification to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below. The release application was perfectly maintainable at the instance of the applicant-landlady. 18. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners may be provided a reasonable time to vacate the shop in question. It is therefore provided that: - (1) The petitioners shall file an undertaking before the Court below within four weeks' that they shall hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question i.e. 86/9 measuring "7.7ft.X7.7ft." situated at ground floor of the property no. 85/7, Mohalla Sulatanpura, Agra, to the applicant-landlady on or before 1st August, 2016. (2) In case the petitioners fail to furnish the undertaking or vacate the shop in question within the time given above, appropriate proceedings for their eviction may be initiated. 19. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.