Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 333 (ALL)

Gopal Verma v. Natthu Lal

2022-03-08

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Tandon and Sri Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is tenants' petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.7.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Varanasi in P.A. Appeal No. 118 of 2012 allowing the release application of the landlord-respondent No. 1. 3. The case has checkered history. One Smt. Kutra Devi was the owner and landlord of House No. D-46/6, Manihari Tola, Luxa Road, Varanasi. On the ground floor of the premises, three shops exist. Out of three shops, one shop was in possession of the landlord and the adjoining second shop was in possession of one tenant Sahdev and the third shop was in possession Salikram (father of petitioners and defendants-respondent Nos. 2 to 6). 4. In the year 1978, P.A. Case No. 126 of 1978 was filed by Smt. Kutra Devi setting up need of her son which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 16.2.1980. Against which, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed on 10.5.1982. 5. In the year 1983, Smt. Kutra Devi filed two release applications under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against both the tenants-Salikram and Sahdev, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 170 of 1983 (Smt. Kutra Devi vs. Salikram) and P.A. Case No. 169 of 1983 (Smt. Kutra vs. Sahdev). Both the release applications were allowed vide order dated 4.3.1986. 6. Against the said order, two rent appeals being Rent Appeal No. 97 and 98 of 1996 were preferred. On 12.5.1989, both the rent appeals were allowed. 7. Against the said order, two writ petitions were filed by the landlord before this Court being Writ Petition No. 14893 of 1989 (Natthu Lal vs. Gopal) and Writ Petition No. 14895 of 1989 (Natthu Lal vs. Sahdev). 8. It would not be out of case to mention that the original landlord Smt. Kutra Devi died on 17.8.1988 and Natthu Lal, thus, became the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute. On 5.5.2005, the other tenant Sahdev vacated the adjoining shop, which was subject-matter of dispute in Writ Petition No. 14895 of 1989. 8. It would not be out of case to mention that the original landlord Smt. Kutra Devi died on 17.8.1988 and Natthu Lal, thus, became the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute. On 5.5.2005, the other tenant Sahdev vacated the adjoining shop, which was subject-matter of dispute in Writ Petition No. 14895 of 1989. vide judgment dated 4.7.2005, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 14893 of 1989 on the ground that the need of Natthu Lal was satisfied by increasing dimensions of the shop after removing the wall in between the shop. 9. It was in the year 2006 that a fresh release application was filed by the landlord Natthu Lal being registered as Case No. 22 of 2006 setting up bona fide need of his son Kanhaiya Lal and daughter-in-law, Meenakshi Devi. 10. On 12.7.2012, the said release application was rejected, against which a Rent Appeal bearing No. 118 of 2012 was filed and the same was dismissed on 23.1.2016. A Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14181 of 2016 was filed before this Court assailing the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Court. 11. On 20.8.2018, the said writ petition was allowed to the extent that the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court directing for consideration of the need of son, daughter-in-law and grand children and the landlord was given liberty to amend his pleadings and file evidence in that regard. 12. After the remand, the release application was amended on 1.5.2019 and need of grand sons and grand daughters was set up. The Rent Appeal No. 118 of 2012 was allowed by the Court below on 16.7.2019 and the need of the son, daughter-in-law, grand sons and grand daughters were found to be genuine and bona fide. Hence, the present writ petition. 13. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below while allowing the release application did not record any finding on the bona fide need, rather after discussing the facts set up by the parties and referring to the various judgments found the need of the landlord to be genuine and bona fide. He then contended that the affidavits filed by the parties were not discussed by the Court below. He then contended that the affidavits filed by the parties were not discussed by the Court below. He further submitted that after the shop was vacated by the other tenant Sahdev, the need of the landlord stood satisfied and the Court below was not correct to allow the release application. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also contended that in the earlier round of litigation, both the Courts below had found the need of the landlord to be bogus and frivolous. After the remand of the matter by this Court, the Court below should not have allowed the release application only and only on the basis of subsequent need of grand children alone by brushing aside the original need as set up in the release application. 15. The third argument raised by learned counsel was in regard to the fact that the Court below did not record its satisfaction as to the bona fide need, and the Court below had carved out a new case that the alternative shop is not suitable for the sons or grand sons for their business. As to the comparative hardship, he contended that the tenant had applied for allotment of shop which is Paper No. 184-C (Annexure 14 to the writ petition) and the finding recorded by the Court below that no effort has been made by the tenant to get an alternative accommodation is totally against material available on record. Lastly, he submitted that some reasonable time may be granted for vacating the premises in question. 16. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Nidhi vs. Ram Kripal Sharma, 2017 (5) SCC 640 . Relevant Para-15 is extracted here as under: ''15. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, the Court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the Court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions. In Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 , this Court held as under: 11. However, the Court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the Court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions. In Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 , this Court held as under: 11. The ordinary Rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the Rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. Motor and General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 , this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the Court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the Court cannot be blinked at. The Court may in such cases bend the Rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or Rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the Court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the Court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) Rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the Rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed. Om Prakash Gupta's case was referred with approval in Ram Kumar Barnwal vs. Ram Lakhan (Dead), (2007) 5 SCC 660 .'' 17. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Pashupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. Motor and General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409 . Relevant Para-4 is extracted here as under: ''4. Two submissions were advanced by Sri K. S. Raniamurthy to salvage his client's case. He argued that it was illegal for the High Court to have taken cognisance of subsequent events, disastrous as they proved to be. Secondly, he urged that once the High Court held-as it did- that the appellate tribunal acted illegally in remitting the whole case to the Rent Controller, it could not go further to dismiss his whole eviction proceedings, a misfortune heavier than would have been, had he not moved the High Court at all.'' 18. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ramesh Kumar vs. Keshav Ram, AIR 1992 SC 700 , Hasmat Rai and Another vs. Raghunath Prasad, 1981 SCC 1711 and Rakesh Kumar Joshi vs. Narendra Kumar, 2008 (2) ADJ 404 (SC). 19. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent submitted that Smt. Kutra Devi who was the original landlord had instituted proceedings for eviction in the year 1983 against the two tenants, Sahdev and Salikram (predecessors of the petitioners). The shop occupied by Sahdev was vacated during the pendency of writ petition before this Court and the writ filed against Salikram was dismissed. 20. According to him by passage of time, need of son and daughter-in-law of Natthu Lal son of Kutra Devi came into existence and release application was filed in the year 2006. The shop occupied by Sahdev was vacated during the pendency of writ petition before this Court and the writ filed against Salikram was dismissed. 20. According to him by passage of time, need of son and daughter-in-law of Natthu Lal son of Kutra Devi came into existence and release application was filed in the year 2006. When the matter travelled to this Court, it was in 2018 that the children of Kanhaiya Lal had also become major and were unemployed and their need came into existence and the writ Court while setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the lower Appellate Court remanded back the matter giving liberty to the landlord to amend his release application and the same was to be considered by the Appellate Authority. The order passed on 20.8.2018 by this Court was not challenged by the tenants-petitioners. 21. He then contended that every adult member of the family is entitled to have his own separate business and the tenant cannot insist and claim that the owner of the premises must continue in business with his parents or relations assuming that there was a joint business activity to start with. 22. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kaushal Kumar Gupta vs. Bishun Prasad and Others, 2005 ADJ 78 (All), Hari Shankar vs. Om Prakash and Others, 2018 (127) ALR 589. Relevant Para 12 is extracted here as under: ''12. In the case of Faruk Ilaht Tamboli and another (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it certainly cannot be the claim at the behest of a tenant, that the owner of a premises must continue in business with his parents or relations, assuming there was a joint business activity, to start with. That is usual, and happens all the time when children come of age. And thereafter, they must have the choice to run their own life, by earning their own livelihood. The property owner has the right to use his property as he chooses, for running his business. There could be no irregularity if owner of the property chooses to use his property for running his business, independent of the business of other family members. The property owner has the right to use his property as he chooses, for running his business. There could be no irregularity if owner of the property chooses to use his property for running his business, independent of the business of other family members. In the case of Anil Bajaj and Another vs. Vinod Ahuja (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business. Even if the landlord is doing business from various other premises, it cannot foreclose his right to seek eviction from the tenanted premises so long as he intends to use the said tenanted premises for his own business.'' 23. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sushila vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and Others, 2003 (1) ARC 256. 24. Sri Jain, learned Senior Counsel further contended that subsequent events can be considered at any stage of the proceedings and Court may mould relief. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Jai Prakash Gupta vs. Riyaz Ahmad, 2009 (3) ARC 628 . Relevant Paras 21 and 22 are extracted here as under: ''21. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is therefore, a settled proposition of law that subsequent developments of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the Court, even at any stage of the proceeding, is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of the subsequent developments of fact and law to mould the relief. Keeping these principles in mind and considering the nature of subsequent developments as brought out by the parties during the pendency of the writ petition, we are of the view that we will have to find out a solution within the scope of this exception. Therefore, the test is whether the subsequent events of fact have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief awarded before consideration of such subsequent events. 22. Therefore, the test is whether the subsequent events of fact have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief awarded before consideration of such subsequent events. 22. In the present case, the death of the father of the appellant is taken as a valid excuse by the tenant to argue that since the present landlord had other options for accommodation and for starting an office as a Chartered Accountant, he could, without any hardship, forgo his claim to the shop in dispute. Again, if it is an admitted position that the present landlord has acquired a house behind the shop in dispute, then he has to prove by evidence that the said house available is not suitable for starting an office space for his Chartered Accountancy firm. In this connection, we have examined the factual findings of the Appellate Court and concluded that the recorded findings are insufficient to decide the matter in the light of the subsequent developments. The occurrence of the subsequent developments has not been denied upon by the appellant, in fact, has been accepted by him. But the landlord/appellant has also, by his counter-affidavit, pleaded that in view of the long pendency of the proceeding for release, his requirement has increased as the two sons and a daughter have grown up and, therefore, the requirement of the landlord/appellant has to be adjudged in the light of the statements made by him in the counter-affidavit. Thus, the issue that needs to be examined now is whether there is any change in the nature of the claim of the present appellant consequent upon the occupation of a house in vacant condition behind the suit building and also consequent upon the death of the father of the original landlord, who was running a business in the suit building which had fallen vacant because of the death of the father of the appellant and also the accommodation that was available to the parents of the appellant would also be taken into consideration for the purpose of coming to a finding as to whether the appellant still requires the shop in dispute or not. That apart, the tenant submitted, the occupation of house, which was used for running the printing business of his deceased father has come to the use of the landlord/appellant, and therefore, the requirement of the landlord has already been fulfilled. Moreover, in the light of the fact that the tenant now has alternative space for his business, it has to be seen whether such alternative space is suitable enough for the tenant and whether he can shift there without substantial loss. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Court in view of the fact that all the facts stated herein need to be gone into after taking evidence on such facts. The effect of the subsequent developments on the bona fide need of the present landlord as well as the comparative hardship of the parties on material facts could not be taken into consideration by the Writ Court without proper evidence on record. However, considering the age of the litigation i.e. 15 years and if the matter is sent back to the Appellate Court, the proceeding may continue for another 15 years, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sending the case back to the Appellate Court for fresh decision in the light of the subsequent developments as noted hereinabove. In our view, it would have been appropriate and proper and in the interest of justice for the High Court to keep the Writ Petition pending before it and sent back the issue on the effect of subsequent developments and supplementary-affidavit and counter-affidavit on bona fide requirement and comparative hardship to the Appellate Court and after the Appellate Court taking evidence, it shall send back to the High Court, the evidence that would be taken and also the findings arrived at thereon. In the event, the Appellate Court finds it difficult to take evidence on its own, it will be open to it to frame the issue and send the same to take evidence to the Prescribed Authority who, in turn, will take the evidence of the parties and send the same to the Appellate Court for the purpose of considering the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlord/appellant and comparative hardship of the parties. In view of the statements made in the counter-affidavit filed by the landlord/appellant to the extent that he has got two grown up sons and a daughter and that being the position, the requirement of the present landlord has increased and, therefore, the tenant/respondent is liable to be evicted. That being the position, we are, therefore, of the view that it would be open to the landlord/appellant to file an application for amendment of the original release application for the purpose of incorporating the fact of the requirement of two sons and a daughter by amending the same to which it would be open to the respondent/tenant to file written objection.'' 25. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kedar Nath Agrawal vs. Dhanraji Devi, 2004 (2) ARC 764. Relevant Paras 28 and 29 are extracted here as under: ''28. Strong reliance was placed by the contesting respondents on a decision of this Court in Rameshwar and Others vs. Jot Ram and Another, (1976) 1 SCR 847 , before the High Court as well as before us. In Rameshwar, the tenant had become 'deemed purchaser' under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. During the pendency of appeal, the 'large' land owner died and his heirs became 'small' land owners. It was, therefore, contended on behalf of the land owners in appeal that since appeal is continuation of suit, subsequent event of death of the original owner should be considered. This Court, however, refused to take note of subsequent event on equitable considerations. Keeping in view the agrarian reforms, this Court said: ''To hold that, if the landlord dies at some distant date after the title has vested in the tenant, the statutory process would be reversed if by such death, his many children, on division, will be converted into small landholders, is to upset the day of reckoning visualized by the Act and to make the vesting provision 'a teasing illusion', a formal festschrift to agrarian reform, not a flaming programme of 'now and here'. These surrounding facts drive home the need not to allow futurism, in a dawdling litigative scene, to foul the quick legislative goals.'' (Emphasis supplied) 29. These surrounding facts drive home the need not to allow futurism, in a dawdling litigative scene, to foul the quick legislative goals.'' (Emphasis supplied) 29. In Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 1 SCR 923 , an eviction petition was filed in 1978 by the landlord on the ground of bona tide need for the use as a clinic by his son. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller in 1982 and the order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in 1985. During the pendency of the petition in the High Court however, the son joined medical service. Relying on the said development, it was contended by the tenant before the High Court that the landlord was no more in need of the premises and the petition was liable to be dismissed. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. The aggrieved tenant approached this Court. It was contended on behalf of the tenant that a subsequent development could not have been ignored by the High Court, particularly when the eviction was sought for personal use and the need no more continued in view of acceptance of service by the son of the landlord. This Court, however, negatived the contention and stated: ''We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post-petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow-process system subsists. During 23 years, after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendent lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period.'' 26. He then contended that after the death of original tenant Salikram, his heirs had purchased property and they had alternative place for doing business and the Court below had recorded a concurrent finding to this effect. According to him, no effort was made by the petitioners to find out alternative place during the pendency of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority and it was for the first time after the matter was remanded back by this Court on 20.8.2018 that an application was moved on 14.5.2019 for allotment, hence the comparative hardship of the tenant cannot be considered as he has not made any effort for alternative accommodation. 27. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. 28. It is a case where initially the landlady Smt. Kutra Devi had filed release application in respect of two tenanted shops, one which was in occupation of one Sahdev and the other in possession of Salikram (father of the petitioners). During the pendency of the litigation, Salikram vacated the premises in question. While, the release application, filed by Smt. Kutra Devi for her son Natthu Lal, of the shop in possession of Salikram was dismissed by this Court on 4.7.2005 on the ground of the need of Natthu Lal having been satisfied. During the pendency of the litigation, Salikram vacated the premises in question. While, the release application, filed by Smt. Kutra Devi for her son Natthu Lal, of the shop in possession of Salikram was dismissed by this Court on 4.7.2005 on the ground of the need of Natthu Lal having been satisfied. After the death of Kutra Devi, Natthu Lal had become the owner and landlord of the shop in possession of Salikram and his legal heirs. 29. It was in 2006 that Natthu Lal wanted to settle his son Kanhaiya Lal and daughter-in-law Meenakshi Devi and a release application was moved. 30. The matter travelled up to this Court through Writ Petition No. 14181 of 2016. On 20.8.2018, the Court found that as 12 years have passed and children of Kanhaiya Lal have also become major and bona fide need of the family still exists. The rejection of release application by the Prescribed Authority as well as lower Appellate Court was found to be illegal and perverse and both the orders were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the lower Appellate Court for decision afresh granting liberty to both the parties to amend their pleadings and file any evidence if need so arose. 31. The landlord moved amendment application on 28.2.2019 stating that now his grand son Saurabh Kumar was aged about 27 years and was unemployed and having a degree in law wanted to start business. Further, it was also stated that another grand son Rishabh Kumar was studying in Intermediate and grand daughter Vaishali having completed her law from Kashi Vidya Peeth and having been enrolled with the U.P. Bar Council, wanted to start her legal practice and for which she needed a chamber. Thus, the bona fide need not only of the son of Natthu Lal existed, but also with the passage of time, need of grand son and grand daughter also arose on their becoming major. The landlord also filed affidavit to the effect bringing on record the sale-deed in respect of a property purchased by Madan Lal one of the son of late Salikram. 32. The tenants-petitioners contested the same and denied the need of the landlord. The landlord also filed affidavit to the effect bringing on record the sale-deed in respect of a property purchased by Madan Lal one of the son of late Salikram. 32. The tenants-petitioners contested the same and denied the need of the landlord. The lower Appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that not only the need of Kanhaiya Lal exists, but the need of grand son Saurabh Kumar and grand daughter Vaishali also exists as they have become major. 33. The argument of Sri Pankaj Agarwal to the extent that lower Appellate Court has not recorded any finding as to the bona fide need cannot be accepted as the lower Appellate Court in categorical term has considered the provisions of Rule 16 (2) (d) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972 and recorded a categorical finding that the grand daughter Vaishali needed an accommodation for running her chamber as she has completed her law and is enrolled with the U.P. Bar Council. 34. Argument as to the moulding of relief is concerned, it is clear that the Apex Court in case of Pashupuleti Venkateswarlu (Supra) had already held that Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the conditions being satisfied......(i) that relief, as claimed originally has, by reasons of subsequent events become inappropriate or cannot be granted (ii) that taking note of such subsequent events or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties, and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the Court promptly and in accordance with the Rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. 34. The Apex Court found that a fact arising after the lis coming to the notice of the Court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the Court cannot be blinked at. The said proposition of law was reiterated in Jai Prakash Gupta (Supra) and Kedar Nath Agarwal (Supra). 36. The said proposition of law was reiterated in Jai Prakash Gupta (Supra) and Kedar Nath Agarwal (Supra). 36. In the present case as the release application was filed in the year 2006, this Court, on 20.8.2018 while setting aside the orders passed by the Courts below, remanded back the matter to the lower Appellate Court granting liberty to the parties to amend their pleadings. The argument raised as to the moulding of the relief by the petitioners' side finds no help from the judgments relied upon and the release application was amended pursuant to the judgment of this Court which had remained unchallenged by the petitioners. An attempt has been made by the petitioners' counsel that the lower Appellate Court only relying upon subsequent event had allowed the release application and had not considered the original need set up by the landlord. 37. This Court finds that the lower Appellate Court was bound to consider the composite need of the family members of the landlord who were in dire need of the accommodation as not only the son of the landlord was unemployed, but by the passage of time, the grand children had also grown up and had become major and their need was rightfully set up by the landlord. 38. The most crucial aspect of the matter could not be overlooked that the matter in regard to the release of the shop in question was for the first time raised by Smt. Kutra Devi in 1983 for the need of her son Natthu Lal. More than 39 years have elapsed since then and the litigation between the parties is going on in respect to the one and the same shop. During this period, not only the need of son and daughter-in-law of the landlord Natthu Lal arose, but the grand children of Natthu Lal has also become major. 39. The Court cannot blink it eyes towards the need of the other family members of the landlord who are unemployed and want to start business with the passage of time. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that every adult member of family is entitled to have his separate business. 40. 39. The Court cannot blink it eyes towards the need of the other family members of the landlord who are unemployed and want to start business with the passage of time. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that every adult member of family is entitled to have his separate business. 40. Rule 16 (2) (d) categorically provides for due consideration to be given to those sons or unmarried daughters of the landlord who have completed their technical education and are not employed in Government Service and want to engage in self employment. 41. In the present case, grand daughter Vaishali having degree of law wants to start her legal practice, cannot be denied the benefit of said Rule and the Court below had rightly allowed the release application. 42. Now, coming to the last argument raised by petitioners' counsel as to comparative hardship and non-consideration of evidence on record by the lower Appellate Court, this Court finds that it was for the first time on 14.5.2019 that the petitioners moved an application for getting a shop allotted, while the release application was considered by the lower Appellate Court finally on 16.7.2019. No effort was made by the tenants-petitioners since 2006 when the release application was filed by the landlord and it was almost after 13 years when the judgment was going to be pronounced by the lower Appellate Court that as an eye wash, an application was moved which has been brought on record as Annexure 14 to the writ petition. 43. Looking to the conduct of petitioners, it is clear that they were not sincere and made any diligent effort in finding any alternate accommodation, thus the lower Appellate Court had rightly held that the comparative hardship tilted in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 1. 44. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no indulgence is required in the judgment and order dated 16.7.2019 passed by the lower Appellate Court, the writ petition stands dismissed. 45. 44. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no indulgence is required in the judgment and order dated 16.7.2019 passed by the lower Appellate Court, the writ petition stands dismissed. 45. However, as a last attempt when the writ petition was dismissed, learned counsel had prayed for some reasonable time to vacate the premises in question, this Court grants six months' time to the petitioner to vacate the shop in question with the following conditions: (a) The tenants-petitioners shall file an undertaking before Court below that they shall hand over peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-respondent on or before 8.9.2022. (b) The said undertaking shall be filed before the Court below within two weeks from today. (c) The tenants-petitioners shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of one month from today. (d) The tenants-petitioners shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month by 7th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 8.9.2022 or till the date they vacate the premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount. (e) In the undertaking, the tenants-petitioners shall also state that they will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute. (f) 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. (g) In case the premises is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the tenants-petitioners, they shall also be liable for contempt.