Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49371 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29740 of 2021 Petitioner :- Zubair Ahmad Respondent :- Mohd. Shafiq And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar,Satish Kumar Mishra,Shubham Singh,Utkarsh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd. Zuheib Ali Khan,Aftab Ahmad,Shesh Verma Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. (Order on I.A. No. 11 of 2025) 1. This application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 22.04.2025. 2. Cause shown is sufficient. 3. The application is allowed and the order dated 22.04.2025 is recalled. 4. Writ petition is restored to its original file and number. (Order on Writ Petition) 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties on merits and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an appellate order dated 20.10.2021 passed in Rent Appeal No. 08 of 2018. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that, the respondent- landlord initiated proceedings by filing an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 84 of 2015, in the said case, the landlord had pleaded that the shop in question under tenancy was required for starting the business of landlord. The petitioner took a defence that during the pendency of the petition, the person whose need were setup was also running some news agency. 4. The trial court framed as many as two issues. While deciding the issue no.1, the trial court decided that the need was not bonafide in as munch as the person for whose need, the application was filed, was working as an Editor in a daily newspaper and, therefore, he could not be requiring the shop for conducting the business. The said release application came to be dismissed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 13.02.2018. The said order of the prescribed authority was challenged in an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the said appeal came to be allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, both the parties were heard, the plea taken by the petitioner that he is a poor person and does not have any other means to run the shop was also considered, the appellate court recorded that merely because during the pendency of the release application, the landlord is engaging in another occupation, it cannot be said that the need is either fanciful or not bonafide, it was decided that, the landlord has denied to establish his business if he so desires. 5. On the question of comparative hardship also, the court held that no efforts were made by the tenant to file alternative accommodation. Thus, on both the counts, the matter was decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. The release application was, thus, allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the appellate court has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the shop in question was taken on rent on 08.02.1991 and some amount of Rs. 12,000/- was also given as security. It is stated that initially, the rent of the premises was Rs. 225/- per month, which was to be increased to Rs. 250/- per month from 1993 and at present, the rent of the premises is Rs. 2000/-. He also pleads that the petitioner is a poor person and, thus, he should be granted protection by this Court. 7. Considering the said submission, it is fairly well-settled that the application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is to be decided mainly on two grounds, firstly, the bonafide need and, secondly, the comparative hardship. In respect of bonafide need, what emerges is that admittedly, the person for whose need the application was filed is not self- employed and is working, it is natural for a person in job, to intend to start his own business, thus, the appellate court has rightly held that the need, as pleaded and establish was neither fanciful nor malafide, no interference is called for on that ground. With regard to comparative hardship also, since 1991, no efforts have been made by the petitioner to file alternative accommodation. Thus, on the ground of comparative hardship also, the findings rendered by the appellate court is justified, no good ground for interference is made out. 8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests that some reasonable time be granted to vacate the premises. 10. Considering the said submission, the petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate the premises, subject to the petitioner execute an undertaking in the form of written affidavit before the appellate court within a period of three weeks from today, undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31st March, 2026 and to handover the physical and vacant possession to the landlord and to no one else. 11. In the event of petitioner failing to file such an undertaking, the benefit of six months shall not be extended to him and the decree shall be executed forthwith. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench