ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant, who is the landlord, is questioning the judgment dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition-A No. 20137 of 2010 wherein the High Court affirmed the judgment dated 16.01.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozabad in P.A. Appeal No. 65 of 2008 which reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller. 3. The parties are referred to as per the rank before the rent controller. The petitioner landlord filed a petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship which came to be allowed and said order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the Rent Controller came to be reversed by the appellate court and confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal. 4. The Rent Controller had accepted the plea of bona fide need of the landlady, namely, that daughter-in-law being a qualified doctor was in need of the suit schedule premises for setting up her clinic. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, the prescribed authority (Civil Judge) allowed the petition, which was reversed by the appellate authority by order dated 16.1.2010 on the ground that the daughter-in-law of the appellant is employed as Demonstrator in the Department of Biochemistry and is a resident of Dehradun where her husband is also working and there are no bonafides in the claim of the appellant. It was also held by the appellate authority that respondent is engaged in the business of sale of Rasgulla for the past 40 years and it is his only source of income and in the scale of comparative hardship, the eviction, if ordered, would cause more hardship to the tenant. The High Court confirmed the said order of the appellate authority by opining that the return of the daughter-in-law of the appellant to Ferozabad is unlikely as her husband is an Associate Professor and working at Himalaya Institute Hospital Trust, Dehradun. 5. During the course of these proceedings the appellant expired and her legal representatives have been brought on record. It is also not in dispute that Dr. 5. During the course of these proceedings the appellant expired and her legal representatives have been brought on record. It is also not in dispute that Dr. Preeti Chaturvedi, who was daughter-in-law of the deceased appellant has also expired during the pendency of the present proceedings and the affidavit of her husband, namely, son of the deceased landlady dated 23.1.2025 filed in these proceedings would disclose that he is aged about 58 years and is working as Professor in Department of Physiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun. He has specifically pleaded in his affidavit that the shop let out to the respondent-tenant is genuinely required or needed for the purpose of starting his private medical practice and he propose to resign and start medical practice by relocating to Ferozabad. He has also deposed that he intends to start the clinic after tendering resignation by forwarding his intentment to retire with three months' notice to his employer. It is also his plea that most of the clinics are located in the Sadar Bazar area of Ferozabad, namely, in the vicinity of the suit schedule premises and as such he intends to set up his clinic in suit scheduled premises. His only daughter is studying at United States of America and as such he intends to relocate. He pleads that his father who is aged 85 years is to be taken care of and for this reason also, he intends to relocate and commence his medical practice by establishing a clinic in the suit schedule premises. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has reiterated the averments made in the said affidavit and the pleadings laid before the courts below to contend that the bona fide requirement of the appellants still subsists and has not vanished. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that it was the specific plea of the deceased-appellant that she would require the suit schedule premises to enable her daughter in law to commence her medical practice and by virtue of her daughter-in-law having expired, the need of the appellant has got abated or, in other words, it no more exists. Hence, has sought for rejection of this appeal. 8. Hence, has sought for rejection of this appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having bestowed our anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we are of the considered view that bona fide need or requirement, as pleaded by the appellant, being for the member of the family, namely, initially for the daughterin-law and the subsequent affidavit filed by her son who is also a qualified doctor and he having expressed his intention to start his medical practice and take care of his 85 years old ailing father, by no stretch of imagination, said plea can be construed as one being malafide or doubt his bonafides. Undisputedly, the tenant-respondent having continued the business in suit schedule premises for long number of years, would be in a position to search for an alternate accommodation and shift his business to the new premises which he may obtain. Having regard to the period in which he has been in occupation of the suit schedule premises, we deem it proper that some breathing time, if granted to the respondent-tenant to quit, vacate and hand over possession of the suit schedule premises, it would meet the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, accepting the plea of the landlord that the suit schedule premises is required for the use and occupation of the appellants, we set aside the order dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition-A No.20137 of 2010 and the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozabad in PA Appeal No. 65/2008 and restore the order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the prescribed authority/Civil Judge (JD), Ferozabad in PA Case No. 13 of 2007 and grant six months time, i.e., till 30.09.2025 to the respondent-tenant to quit, vacate and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule premises subject to payment of rent regularly and filing an undertaking to the said effect before this Court within six weeks from today failing which the time granted by this Court would not enure to the benefit of the respondent-tenant. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. All pending applications stand consigned to records.