Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10241 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16356 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ahmad Husain Respondent :- Additional District Judge Court No.2 Barabanki And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Aslam Khan,Mohammad Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Devki Nandan,Rakesh Pathak,Vijay Pathak Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vijay Pathak, learned Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 10.02.2020, whereby, the release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was allowed as well as the order dated 08.04.2021, whereby, the appeal preferred by the tenant-petitioner was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the respondents-landlords moved an application for release of the shop in question, which is under the tenancy of the petitioner. In the release application, it was pleaded that the father of the opposite parties no.3 and 4 was the owner of the shops, which were 13 in number and after his death, inter se partition took place in between the brothers and the shop in question was allotted in the share of opposite party no.3, for which the release application was filed stating that the shop in question was required for carrying on business and expanding the business. It was also stated that as the landlord did not have a shop of his own, he was forced to run a shop in a tenanted accommodation. 4. The Counsel for the respondents-landlords argues that one of the shops was sold on account of the financial exigencies suffered by the family after the death of their father. With regard to the shop at Chinhat, it was stated that the landlord had taken the said shop on rent for business as his shop is not vacant. 5. The trial court accepted the contention of the landlords with regard to the bona fide need and the comparative hardship. It was held that no efforts have been taken by the defendant to find another shop and released application was allowed. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed on same grounds. 6. In the present case, it has also been argued that the father of the opposite parties no.3 and 4 had entered into an agreement to sale on 01.02.2008 during his life time in respect of the same shop in question, which according to the petitioner demonstrates that the shop in question was not needed bona fidely. To the said averment, it has been argued by the Counsel for the respondent that the agreement to sale was executed during the life time of his father, however, after his death, the shop in question was needed by the landlord, for which the application was filed. He further denies that he would sell the shop in question after the same is got released. In view of the said as well as there being any evidence that the landlord was also intending to sell the property after getting the same released, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. The finding of facts have been recorded by both the courts below on the ground of personal need and comparative hardship. It is well settled that interference under Article 227 is limited to the error which are apparent on the face record. 8. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned. The petition is dismissed. 9. At the last the Counsel for the petitioner argues that some time may be granted to vacate the premises as the petitioner is running a commercial shop since very long. The said request opposed by the Counsel for the landlords, however, he agrees that some reasonable time may be granted. 10. In view of the said, the petitioner is granted time till 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises in question subject to filing an undertaking within two weeks from today before the court concerned that he shall vacate the premises in question till 31.12.2025 and shall handover the actual and physical possession to the landlords and no other else. 11. Needless to say that the landlords does not use the premises in question for which the same is released and the defendant- petitioner would be entitled to avail the remedy as are available under law. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench