Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26367 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26031 of 2017 Petitioner :- Rajendra Bahadur Srivastava Respondent :- Jagjeet Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pathak,Vijay Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Nishank Rastogi,Rajendra Singh,Shailendra Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 18.09.2013 passed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 whereby on the request of the landlord, the premises in question was directed to be released for the need set up for establishing the son of the landlord as well as the order dated 04.09.2017 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed. 3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the application filed for release, it was stated that the shop in question of the petitioner was required to be used as a way and the petitioner at this stage offers that he is ready and willing to part of half of the shop in his occupation, so that the right of way as pleaded could be established. He thus argues that the petition should be allowed to the extent that half of the portion be permitted to be retained by the petitioner and the other half can be released in favour of the respondent's son. It is further argued that to establish the need as pleaded in the application, the son of the respondent landlord did not enter into the witness box for supporting the contention. 4. Considering the said submission and on perusal of the two orders, it is clear that the release application was filed alleging that the son of the landlord was unemployed and would require the place for establishing his business. It was also stated that the part of the shop in occupation of the petitioner was required for establishing a way and the balance part for establishing his son of the landlord. Both the Courts below have recorded the findings of fact after appreciation of evidence. The contention of the petitioner at this stage merits rejection for the sole reason that the Prescribed Authority has recorded the fact that the part of the shop in occupation of the petitioner was required to be used as a way and other part was required for establishing his business. The other contention of the petitioner that the son of the landlord did not enter the witness box also merits rejection as there is no necessity of the person to enter the witness box merely because the shop is sought to be released in his favour. No error can be found in the orders warranting interference. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 5. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for execution in accordance with law. 6. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner seeks sometime to vacate the premises. He is granted time upto 30.09.2025 to vacate the premises subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within 15 days to vacate the premises and to handover the same to the son of the landlord and to no one else. In the event of failure to file such an affidavit within 15 days, the execution shall proceed and shall be concluded within a period of four months. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench