HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 14150 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Harpreet Singh Taneja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondents who has appeared on caveat. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 10, Raebareli (acting as Prescribed Authority) in proceedings arising out of Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 whereby the release application preferred by the respondents has been allowed. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1972 which also came to be dismissed on 23.09.2025. 3. These two orders are being assailed primarily on the ground that the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority did not consider the aspect of bona fide need appropriately. 4. It is urged that the stand of the landlord was wavering and their conduct was such that on the same ground upon which the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner was sought to be released, was taken by the landlord to get the premises released which were in possession of the other tenants and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this casts a cloud over the bona fide need. 5. It is further urged that even the issue of comparative hardships has not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harpreet Singh Taneja, Anand Sharma, Rajesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mohit Sharma, Pooja Mishra, Somender Lal Mohd. Tahir .....Petitioner(s) Ravindra Nath Srivastava .....Respondent(s) been appropriately noticed, inasmuch as, the Rules framed under the Act of 1972, more particularly Rule 16 has not been followed. The petitioner has been in possession of the shop and had acquired reasonable goodwill and this aspect has also not been considered while taking note of the comparative hardship. 6. In such circumstances, it is urged that the two orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law. 7. Ms. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has urged that both the issue relating to bona fide need and comparative hardships is a question of fact which has been duly proved. These findings unless shown to be patently perverse cannot be made the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition and even otherwise the petitioner being the tenant does not have the right to assail the bona fide need as set up by the landlord which is primarily the subject matter between the landlord and the Prescribed Authority. 8. As far as the issue of comparative hardships is concerned, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that since the filing of the release application, what efforts were made by the tenant to vacate and seek an alternate accommodation and in absence thereof even the findings of comparative hardships cannot be assailed by the petitioner. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 10. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, however, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case if some reasonable time is provided to the petitioner to vacate the premises and he is ready to furnish an undertaking that he shall continue to use the premises till 30th June, 2026 in a responsible manner without damaging the property and shall continue to pay the rent to the landlord and would vacate the premises in question latest by 30th June, 2026. 11. This offer has been accepted by Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, upon instructions from the respondent. In furtherance thereof WRIA No. 14150 of 2025 2 the petitioner has furnished an undertaking which has been served on the learned counsel for the respondents who agrees with the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the same is taken on record. 12. In view thereof, the instant petition is disposed of affirming the findings of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority but noticing the terms of the undertaking, this Court provides that the building will stand released in terms of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner shall be entitled to retain the premises latest by 30th June, 2026. He shall continue to pay the rent to the respondent as agreed and shall not damage the property as indicated in his undertaking. In case if the petitioner violates the terms of the undertaking, this shall be construed as willful disobedience of the order passed by the Court and the respondent shall be entitled to initiate the contempt proceedings. 13. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. December 11, 2025 Asheesh WRIA No. 14150 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench