Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41304 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4966 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt. Shail Kumari Respondent :- Addl. Distt. Judge Raebareli And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Mishra,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,Vinay Kumar Rawat Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.07.2019 passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 as well as the order dated 09.11.2022, whereby an appeal was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the respondent, who is the land lord has preferred an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking the vacation of the premises under the tenancy of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the family of the land lord has increased and the occupation in question was required. The contention of the petitioner was that the need set up by the land lord was fanciful and on the comparative hardship, the need of the tenant was more genuine and pressing. On the basis of the pleadings exchanged, the prescribed authority passed an order on 23.07.2019 in favour of the land lord putting that the need set up was bona fine and on the comparative hardship also, the matter was read in favour of the land lord. Challenging the said order, an appeal was prescribed. In the appeal, two points of determination were framed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the two points of determination in the light of the evidence as recorded proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while doing so, the need of the tenant was more pressing and ought to have been considered, which has not been done. 5. The said contention cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, both the courts have held that the need set up for additional requirement by the land lord was bona fide and keeping in view the family members of the land lord, there being no error much less a substantial error in the finding recorded warranting interference. 6. The petition is bound to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prays that the petitioner is a widow and some reasonable time be granted to vacate the premises. 8. In view thereof and considering the fact that the petitioner is in possession since 1979, the petitioner is granted time up to 31st March, 2026 to vacate the premises, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking before the court concerned within a period of three weeks in the form of an affidavit, undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31st March, 2026 and to hand over the physical and vacant possession of the premises in question to the land lord-respondent and to no one else on or before 31st March, 2026. 9. In case, such an affidavit as directed above is not filed within the time granted, the land lord would be at liberty to execute the orders forth with, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench