HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11634 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. The petitioner, before this Court, is tenant of a shop measuring 12 feet 2 inches situated at Mohalla-Sabitganj, East, District-Etawah let out by respondent-landlord. Petitioner is running business of ready-made garments from the said shop. A release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was filed by landlord for his personal need set up in the release application which was registered as P.A. Case No. 15 of 2018. 2. Landlord had claimed that he is a B.Tech graduate and wants to start a computer showroom in the shop let out to petitioner along with three other shops in which there are tenants and if all the four shops are released in his favour the total area shall be 26 feet 4 inch X 14 feet 2 inch. The release application was contested and a reply was filed by petitioner on the ground that landlord-respondent lives at NOIDA and is employed in a company. The total area of rented shops want not sufficient for constructing proposed showroom. Moreover, the shop is surrounded by general stores, ready-made clothes stores and machinery stores. The trial court allowed the release application on 09.11.2023, against which an appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1972 was preferred which has been dismissed on 05.08.2025. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the case set up by landlord is not genuine and comparative hardship of petitioner is more and he has no alternative place to carry on the business, as such, the release application was not maintainable. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Keshav Hari Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mohdammad Anees .....Petitioner(s) Rishabh Gupta .....Respondent(s) 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. It is an admitted case that petitioner is tenant of the shop at monthly rent of Rs.575/- excluding taxes. Respondent-landlord has set up the case for release on the ground that he is a graduate having B.Tech degree and wants to run a computer showroom in the shop let out to petitioner along with three other adjoining shops. 6. The trial court after considering the bona fide need and comparative hardship had allowed the release application. The finding has been confirmed by appellate court. The argument raised by petitioner's counsel that need set up is not genuine and bona fide cannot be accepted as landlord-respondent has clearly established his need being a graduate having B.Tech degree and wants to open a computer showroom. 7. Prima facie, landlord has established a case for his bona fide need and presumption has been recorded by trial court that requirement of landlord is bona fide. The tenant cannot dictate terms to landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting the possession of tenanted premises. In Sushil Kumar Agarwal vs. Additional District Judge (S.C./S.T.), Bahraich, 2009 (1) ARC 136, this Court held that career of young educated person cannot be guided as per the desire of the tenant. 8. In the instant case, it is undisputed that landlord is a qualified engineer and wants to start his own business in the premises let out to tenant- petitioner. Both the courts below have recorded categorical finding as to his bona fide need and have also held that comparative need of landlord is more than the tenant. 9. As finding of fact has been recorded by both courts below, no case for interference is made out. 10. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, in the interest of justice, in case the execution proceedings have not concluded and the order passed by court below has not been executed, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the shop in dispute for six months subject to following conditions:- A227 No. 11634 of 2025 2 (a) The tenant-petitioner shall file an undertaking before court below that he shall hand over peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-respondent on or before 30.04.2026; (b) The said undertaking shall be filed before the court below within two weeks from today; (c) The tenant-petitioner shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of one month from today; (d) In the undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute; (e) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. (f) In case the premises is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the tenant-petitioner, he shall also be liable for contempt. October 13, 2025 V.S.Singh A227 No. 11634 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad