JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.5.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 66 of 2015 (Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Suraj Prasad Gupta and others) as well as order dated 31.7.2015 passed by Additional Judge Small Causes Court 1st / Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 18 of 2008. 3. By the impugned order dated 31.7.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority the application filed by the landlord-respondent herein under Section 21(1) (a) and (b) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was allowed. The appeal against the same filed by the tenant was dismissed by the lower appellate court by impugned judgment dated 21.5.2018. 4. The release application was filed in the year 2008 by the original landlord on the ground that his two sons Govind and Gaurav have completed their education and are unemployed. One son is carrying on a gym in House No. 01/98, Nawabganj, Kanpur Nagar, however, the earning is not enough to fulfill the requirement of the family. He is married and has one son and income from the gym is not sufficient to meet the requirement of the family. The application has been filed in respect of a shop/kiosk, wherein the petitioner herein is the tenant. It was pointed out that a release application was filed against the tenant Ashutosh Bajpayee, who was the tenant in house no. 01/98, under Section 21(1) (a) and (b) of the Act, wherein Ashutosh Bajpayee has clearly admitted that the requirement of the son of the landlord is genuine and that the house is in dilapidated condition and on the basis of compromise he has handed over the possession to the landlord. In the application it was asserted that after including the tenanted accommodation in question, he shall construct a new building to meet out the requirement of the family. It was specifically asserted that until the portion in possession of the present tenant is released construction of new building is not possible. An offer was made to the tenant that after new construction the landlord is ready to hand over one shop to him. It was specifically asserted that until the portion in possession of the present tenant is released construction of new building is not possible. An offer was made to the tenant that after new construction the landlord is ready to hand over one shop to him. The release application was contested on the ground that the provisions of the Act are not applicable. One son Govind is in job in Delhi and younger son Gaurav is running a gym behind the house no. 01/98 and is also having an agency of medicine and is also running a P.C.O. and it was further stated that apart from this, in house no. 2/213 the plaintiff has a departmental store and in house no. 1/13 E, Nawabganj, Kanpur also he have two shops. It was asserted that since the other tenant Ashutosh Bajpayee has vacated the premises in his possession, the same is sufficient to meet the requirement of the family. It was further asserted that in between the vacated shop of Ashutosh Bajpayee and the shop of the tenant, there are three other tenants and unless the same are demolished, no new construction can be raised and that the cases were filed by the landlord on incorrect facts. In the replication the facts asserted by the tenant were disputed. 5. On issue no. 1, it was found that the provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable in view of the admission of the tenant-petitioner in his rent deed dated 31.1.1997 that 8' X 8' shop/kiosk was let out to him and not the open space. On issue no. 2, it was found that there is a landlord-tenant relationship. On issue no. 3, all the property in the ownership of the landlord was considered and need of the landlord was found to be bonafide and genuine. On issue no. 4, the comparative hardship was also found in favour of the landlord. In appeal all the findings of fact were affirmed by the lower appellate court. 6. The impugned judgments and orders are being challenged on the ground that the need of the landlord is not bonafide; after the death of the original landlord, the departmental store, which was being run by him in premises no. In appeal all the findings of fact were affirmed by the lower appellate court. 6. The impugned judgments and orders are being challenged on the ground that the need of the landlord is not bonafide; after the death of the original landlord, the departmental store, which was being run by him in premises no. 2/213, is now being managed by the son of the original landlord and as such the need has vanished; since Ashutosh Bajpayee has already vacated the tenanted accommodation in his possession, the need of the landlord stood fulfilled with the same; elder son of the original landlord is doing permanent job in Delhi and as such has no bonafide need; despite of the finding that the house no. 01/98 (house in dispute), house no. 1/12, 1/116 and 2/213 are owned by the landlord and departmental store is being run from house no. 2/213; the release application has been allowed, which is in contravention of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act; on the identical ground original landlord has filed one release application under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act against another tenant; SCC suit no. 519 of 1999 filed against one Noor Mohammad was allowed, wherein Execution Case No. 36 of 2007 is pending for last several years, which is being deliberately kept pending; and that although the additional evidence filed by the petitioner was allowed by the lower appellate court, however, no independent finding has been recorded on the same. Submission, therefore, is that in such facts and circumstances of the case the need of the family has vanished and therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below regarding bonafide need are perverse and are liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that although the release application was also filed under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act, however, no finding has been recorded on the same. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the shop vacated by Ashutosh Bajpayee has already been demolished and is still lying in the demolished condition. It was further submitted that SCC suit filed against Satish Chandra Gupta was under Section 20 and not under Section 21 of the Act and as such the same is of no help to the petitioner. It was further pointed out that against the same tenant a release application under Section 21 is still pending. It was further submitted that SCC suit filed against Satish Chandra Gupta was under Section 20 and not under Section 21 of the Act and as such the same is of no help to the petitioner. It was further pointed out that against the same tenant a release application under Section 21 is still pending. It is submitted that in the case of Noor Mohammad execution case is pending since the year 2007 and inspite of the best efforts, the execution could not take place. He submitted that no landlord would keep the execution case pending as he is in the need of the property. It was further submitted that the release application in both the clauses i.e. 21 (1) (a) and (b) can simultaneously be filed and there is no bar to the same. He pointed out that it has come before the court that this portion of the property is required for the purpose of raising new construction and also for the beneficial use of the same for the need as set up in the release application. It was further pointed out that a misplaced emphasis has been given on the departmental store being run in property no. 2/213, whereas so called departmental store is existing in the area measuring 28 sq. yds only and it was submitted that it is only the name of the shop has been given as a departmental store, whereas it is a small shop. He lastly submitted that in any view of the matter concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the courts below and there is no perversity in the same and as such there is no scope of interference by this Court in exercising powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India and the present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. 9. The crux of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the need of the landlord-respondent is not bonafide, he has several properties in his possession and the property vacated by Ashutosh Bajpayee is in his possession and as such the need stood extinguished. 10. I find that it is a case of concurrent findings, which are based on documentary evidence on record. 10. I find that it is a case of concurrent findings, which are based on documentary evidence on record. In this reference it would be appropriate to quote the relevant extract of the trial court's judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court, which is quoted as under:- ^^mHk; i{kksa ds mijksDr leLr lk{;ksa ls ;g Lohd`r o Li"V gksuk ik;k tkrk gS fd ;kph edku la[;k 1@98] 1@12] 1@106 rFkk 2@213 dk Hkou Lokeh gSA foi{kh us vius vfrfjDr lk{; 'kiFk i= 27 esa Lo;a ;g dgk gS fd edku la[;k 1@12 esa fdjk,nkj gSA edku la[;k 1@106 ds laca/k esa nkf[ky iap'kkyk] ftls foi{kh us vius lk{; 'kiFk i= 27 ds layXud ds :i esa nkf[ky fd;k gS] esa fxj x;k gS dk vadu gSA mlesa fdlh edku ;k nqdku gksus dk vadu ugha gSA vFkkZr ;g Li"V gS fd edku la[;k 1@12 esa fdjk,nkj gS] [kkyh ugha gS rFkk edku la[;k 1@106 esa dksbZ edku ;k nqdku ugha gSA mHk;i{kksa ds lk{; ls ;g Hkh Li"V o Lohd`r gksuk ik;k tkrk gS fd edku la[;k 2@213 esa ;kph us Lo;a dh fMikVZes.Vy LVksj [kksy j[kh gS rFkk edku la[;k 1@98 esa ;kph dk iq= xkSjo xqIrk fte pykrk gSA xkSjo xqIrk }kjk dfFkr ihŒlhŒvksŒ dkj xSjst o vksyfEi;k ikmMj dk O;olk; fd;k tkuk lkfcr ugha gS] D;ksafd ;fn mDr O;olk; xkSjo xqIrk }kjk fd;k tk jgk gS] rks vklkuh ls blds laca/k esa fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk Áys[kh; lk{; nkf[ky fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] ysfdu foi{kh us bl ckcr dksbZ Áys[k nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA edku la[;k 35ch dks ;kph ds iq=ksa }kjk nkyeksB dk dkj[kkuk gsrq fn;k tkuk Hkh foi{kh lkfcr ugha dj ldk gSA iap'kkykvksa esa edku la[;k 1@95] 1@10] 1@13Mh] 2@402 o 51@94 ij crkSj Hkou Lokeh ;kph dk uke vafdr ugha gS] cfYd edku la[;k 1@10 o 1@13Mh ij ;kph ds HkkbZ jke Álkn xqIrk o fnus'k Álkn xqIrk dk uke rFkk edku la[;k 1@95 o 2@402 ij ;kph ds firk cnzh Álkn dk uke crkSj Hkou Lokeh vafdr gSA ;kph us vius fjCVy lk{; 'kiFk i= 28 esa Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd mlds Hkkb;ksa }kjk ÁkIr edku ls mldk dksbZ okLrk ugha gSA edku la[;k 1@402 dk iap'kkyk foi{kh us nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA vr% ;g lkfcr ugha gS fd ;kph mDr edku dk Hkh Hkou Lokeh gS vkSj mls fdjk, ij mBk j[kk gSA edku la[;k 51@94 esa Hkou Lokeh dk uke nsoh ikB'kkyk egkjkt rFkk v/;klh ds :i esa vU; v/;kfl;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk ;kph ds firk cnzhÁlkn xqIrk dk uke vafdr gSA vr% edku la[;k 51@94 Hkh ;kph dk gksuk lkfcr ugha gSA ;kph ds fjCVy lk{; 'kiFk i= 28 esa fd, x, bl lk{; dk Hkh fd ;kph dk iq= xksfoUn xqIrk Lora= :i ls dk;Z djus ds fy, LFkku u gksus ds dkj.k vLFkkbZ :i ls fnYyh esa ukSdjh dj jgk gS] dk dksbZ [k.Mu foi{kh }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl Ádkj ;g Li"V gS fd ;kph ds ikl vius iq=ksa dks O;olk; esa LFkkfir djkus ds fy, txg dh vko';drk gSA ;kph us ekeys esa ;g lk{; fn;k gS fd og fookfnr xqeVh dks /oLr djds vk'kqrks"k cktisbZ ds fdjk,nkjh okys Hkkx] ftls mlus /oLr dj fn;k gS] dks feykdj nqdkus vius Á;ksx fy, cukuk pkgrk gSA fookfnr xqeVh ds /oLr fd, fcuk mDr fuekZ.k laHko ugha gSA fjTokb.Mj 'kiFk i= 22 ds layXud ds :i esa ;kph us edku la[;k 1@98 esa fuekZ.k ds ckcr ÁLrkfor ekufp= dh QksVks Áfr nkf[ky dh gSA tcfd foi{kh us lk{; fn;k gS fd vk'kqrks"k cktisbZ dh nqdku /oLr ugha dh xbZ gSA bl dFku ds fo:) ;kph us lk{; fn;k gS fd ;fn vk'kqrks"k cktisbZ dh nqdku /oLr ugha dh xbZ gS] rks foi{kh mls vkcafVr djk ys] og dksbZ vkifRr ugha djsxkA bl lk{; dk dksbZ [k.Mu foi{kh }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% foi{kh dk ;g vfHkdFku lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd vk'kqrks"k cktisbZ dh nqdku ekSds ij ekStwn gS /oLr ugha dh xbZ gSA** 11. Perusal of the aforesaid findings clearly indicates that the various house numbers are either not belonging to the landlord-respondent or are not available to him for the business purposes. When the release application was filed it is not in dispute that his both sons were unemployed and one son has gone out for service purposes during pendency of the case. The release application was filed under Section 21(1) (a) and (b) of the Act. To fulfill the object it is not in dispute that the property vacated by Ashutosh Bajpayee has already been demolished. It is also not in dispute that execution case against one Noor Mohammad is pending for last about 11 years but the actual possession could not be taken by the landlord. It is also not in dispute that for the purpose of reconstruction map was also filed before the court below and the landlord appears to be person having sufficient means, who can execute the construction plan. The need of the landlord or his sons for expansion of the business cannot said to be not bonafide. 12. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the court below, which are not perverse in nature, I find that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out. Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the petitioner-tenant before the Court below, it is provided that: (1) The tenant-petitioner shall handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 28.2.2019; (2) The tenant-petitioner shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (3) The tenant-petitioner shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (4) The tenant-petitioner shall pay damages @ Rs. (4) The tenant-petitioner shall pay damages @ Rs. 500/-per month by 07th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 28.2.2019 or till the date he vacates the premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount; (5) In the undertaking the tenant-petitioner shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute; (6) Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till the aforesaid period; (7) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. (8) In case the premises is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner, he shall also be liable for contempt. 14. There shall be no order as to costs.