HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9781 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhur Kant Srivastava who appears for the respondent no.3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.01.2024 passed under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 whereby, the shop in question was released in favour of the landlord as well as, the order dated 11.07.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The application under section 21(1)(a) was filed by the landlord seeking release of the shop in occupation of the petitioner tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.55/- per month. It was alleged that the shop in question was needed for the son of the landlord, who wants to establish his own business. It was also stated that the shop in question was being kept locked by the tenant and was not being vacated. It was also stated that the tenant was having an alternative accommodation also. The said findings were resisted by the tenant. Ultimately, the trial court framed four points of determination. 4. While determining the point no.1, it was recorded that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed in between the parties. With regard to point no.2, considering the fact that the son of the tenant was unemployed, the need was found to be genuine. The finding was also recorded that the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Sajjad Imam Rizvi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Madhur Kant Srivastava, Neeti Singh New Malik Transport Company Thru. Its Manager Shri Neeraj Kumar And Another .....Petitioner(s) Appellate Auth. Addl. Distt. Judge Gonda And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) tenant was having four shops and one of the said shop was already sold by the tenant. Based upon the said findings, the release application was allowed against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate court reconsidered the findings and reiterated the findings recorded including the finding with regard to bonafide need and hardship faced by the landlord. 5. Considering the two orders to be well reasoned after considering factual and evidentiary aspects, no interference is called for. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. The trial court is directed to execute the decree within a period of three months without fail. 8. The trail court shall send a report, after three months, through the Senior Registrar whether the direction given for execution has been complied or not. August 29, 2025 VNP/- WRIA No. 9781 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench