Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4284 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27943 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raja Ram Respondent :- Suresh Babu Rastogi Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Nath Tilhari,Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Singh,Uma Shankar Sahai Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sumukhi Mehrotra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Uma Shankar Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.08.2014 passed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 whereby the release application filed by the landlord was allowed as well as the appellate order dated 06.08.2018 whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord was the owner of the shop in occupation of the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- per month. As the petitioner required the said shop for establishing his sons, he moved an application seeking release of the shop on the ground of personal need. The Prescribed Authority by means of the impugned order while deciding the Issue No. 1 and 2 held that the need set up by the petitioner was genuine on the basis of evidence led. While deciding the other issue, the Prescribed Authority considered that the petitioner who is the tenant did not take any steps for acquiring any other property during the pendency of the release application. Thus on both the issue, the release application was allowed. The appellate authority has also considered the submissions of the petitioner and has dismissed the appeal. 4. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the shop being run by the petitioner, he has acquired substantial goodwill and any other of eviction would cause undue hardship.It is further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the landlord had two shops vacant in the same premises, which were under the tenancy of one other tenant and one was vacant. The said issue was raised and it was recorded that the petitioner could not establish the factum of the said allegation. It is further argued that this fact was not even taken into account by the two authorities. 5. It is no doubt that one of the ground to be considered is acquiring of goodwill, however, the same cannot override the bonafide need. As regards the availability of two shops not being considered, irrespective of the factum of the said allegation, the tenant has no authority to dictate as to which shop according to the landlord is appropriate for establishing his sons. In view of the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts, no good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. At the last, the counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to vacate the premises as he is in occupation for more than 12 years. As the shop in question run by the petitioner is a commercial shop, he is granted nine months time to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner shall vacate the shop in question on or before 31st October, 2025. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking within a period of three weeks before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that he shall vacate the shop in question on or before 31st October, 2025 and shall hand over the vacant and physical possession to the landlord and no one else. In failure of filing such an undertaking within the time granted, the respondent-landlord would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench