Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36886 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6736 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sardar Harpal Singh Respondent :- Ravindra Nath Sriastava Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhav Om,Samir Om Counsel for Respondent :- Raj Kumar Bajpai Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Pooja Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the Shop No. 185/14, Ward No. 17, Darwarilal Market, Sabji Mandi Road, Raebareli, under the tenancy of the petitioner. 3. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner had taken a defence that the respondents, who had filed the release application, was not the sole landlord but was the co-landlord. The release application was filed alleging that the same shop was required for establishing the son of the landlord. After exchange of pleadings, three points of determination were fixed by the Prescribed Authority, ultimately the suit came to be decreed in favour of the landlord finding the need to be genuine and bonafide vide order dated 07.02.2025. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal no. 8/25 was preferred. The appellate Court also by means of the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal, however granted three months time to hand over the shop in question. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the finding with regard to comparative hardship is flawed and requires interference. 5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand argues that on the basis of pleadings and evidence, finding of facts have been recorded, which requires no interference under Article 227. 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie, the findings of fact were recorded and admittedly, the need set up by the landlord was found to be bonafide and genuine. There being no error in the said finding, the same does not require any interference, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is a tenant since 2007, he is granted six months time to vacate the premises subject to petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of the affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within a period of 15 days from today, undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 30.12.2025 and to hand over the vacant and physical possession to the landlord and no one else. In case, the affidavit as directed above is not filed within a period of 15 days from today, the execution shall take place in accordance with law and shall be concluded expeditiously. 7. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench