Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4751 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 313 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jameel Ahmad Respondent :- Sri Ashok Kumar And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Imran Khan,Abdul Alim Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Karunakar Srivastava,Shiv Sinha Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority, whereby, the shops in question were released on favour of the landlords, who had sought the relief on personal grounds as well as the appellate order dated 22.10.2024, whereby, the appeal filed was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that three persons, two being the sons of the landlady as well as the landlady moved an application seeking release of the shop in occupation of the petitioner along with two other shops. The Prescribed Authority framed as may as three issues with regard to the bona fide need. The Prescribed Authority held that need as set up by the landlords was bona fide as they wanted to set up their own business. As regards the issue of comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority held that the tenant had not made any efforts to find another shop, as such, on the issue of comparative hardship, the issue was decided in favour of the landlords. The appellate court also considered the submissions and dismissed the appeal. 4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the landlady is now about 80 years of old and cannot expected to require a shop for which the release application was filed. It is further argued that out of the three shops sought to be release, one of the shops has already been released and thus the need as set up has vanished. 5. Considering the said submissions, prima face, the Prescribed Authority based upon evidence held that need as set up by the landlords was bona fide; on the issue of comparative hardship, the same was decided in favour of the landlords as the findings are based upon the consideration of evidence, as such, the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. The abovesaid impugned orders are reasoned order requiring no interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 7. At this stage, the Counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to vacate the shop in question, to which, the Counsel for the respondents has no objection. 8. Considering the request made by the Counsel for the petitioner, and also the fact that the petitioner is in occupation since long, the petitioner is granted 10 months time to vacate the shop in question subject to the petitioner executing an undertaking in the form of affidavit within three weeks from today. 9. The petitioner shall undertake in the affidavit that he shall handover the vacant and physical possession to the landlord and no other else on or before 30.11.2025. 10. The petitioner is also directed to pay overdue rent, if already not deposited, within six weeks from today. Any amount deposited during the pendency of the proceedings shall be adjusted. 11. In the event of default in filing the undertaking or in payment of arrears of rent as directed above, the benefit granted by this order shall come to an end and the respondent-landlords would be at liberty to execute the said order of eviction in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench