Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27313 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4741 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanjay Nigam Respondent :- Smt. Ram Dulari And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Purusottam Awasthi,Avinash Upadhyay Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Purusottam Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2018, whereby the application of the land lord for release of the shop was allowed as well as the order dated 13.02.2025, whereby the Rent Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was a tenant in the premises owned by the respondent. An application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop for setting up one of his sons, who was working as contractor and wanted the shop in question for setting up his own business. The shop was released by an order passed by the prescribed authority on 31.03.2018. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed that the land lord had two premises and after getting one of the premises in occupation of some other tenant, instead of setting up his son, the same was given on rent to some one else. 4. In the light of the said, it is argued that the impugned orders suffer from non-consideration of the said fact in the form of the subsequent development, as such, the petition should be entertained and the impugned orders should be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that two petitions were filed for release of the premises for the two unemployed sons of the land lord and the shop in question, which is alleged to have been given to some other tenant was to be used for the second son of the land lord and not the son for which, the shop in occupation of the petitioner was sought to be vacated. It is further argued that in the application, it was specifically stated that the son of the land lord was going for construction work and did not have any shop to run his business, which was not denied. 6. Irrespective of the fact that the second shop was given, as alleged, but not established through any evidence. As findings of fact with regard to the bona fide need for setting up business of the son of the land lord had been pleaded and established, no interference is called for. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 8. As the petitioner is in occupation of the shop since long, he is granted one year's time to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner shall hand over the vacant and physical possession of the shop to the land lord on or before 30th April, 2026, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking within a period of 15 days from today in the form an affidavit, undertaking to handover the physical and vacant possession of the shop in question to the land lord and to no one else on or before 30th April, 2026. The arrears of rent, if any, shall also be deposited within a period of one month from today. 9. In the event of failure to file the undertaking as recorded above, the respondent-land lord would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law, within a period of four months from today. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench