S.U. Khan, J.This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondents against the original tenant Shiv Karan Pandey (since deceased and survived by the petitioners) on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 64 of 1986. Property in dispute is residential and consists of one big room and one small room on the first floor and one room on the second floor.

2. It was stated in the release application that landlords applicants had one shop and one small room on the ground floor and they were in urgent need of additional accommodation in the city of Varanasi where property in dispute is situate. It was also stated that the family of the landlords consisted of 34 persons. The tenancy of the tenants petitioners is continuing since 1928 and rent of the accommodation in dispute is Rs. 9.50/- per month. The original tenant was employed with the North-East Railways as Head Clerk.

3. The prescribed authority held that applicants landlords had their ancestral house in Village Hardwa which was near Varanasi their family members were residing there and tempo and city bus service was available from Hardwa to reach Varanasi hence those family members of the landlord who were studying in schools, colleges and Universities in the Varanasi could very well come to Varanasi daily. It is interesting to note that in another adjoining Village Rajvari tenant also had his ancestral house. However the prescribed authority held that as tenant was not residing there since long hence that house might not be habitable. The prescribed authority giving the illustration that from other adjoining areas students were coming to BHU daily held that those family members of the landlord who were studying in different schools and colleges in the Varanasi could also do the same thing. Prescribed Authority held that there was an intermediate college in Hardwa. Prescribed Authority also gave illustration of another village Shivpur, which was initially separate from Banaras but later on became part of Varanasi. The prescribed authority also held that the family of the landlord according to him consisted of 34 persons hence even if house in dispute was released it would not satisfy landlords need.

4. Prescribed Authority therefore held that the need of the landlord was not bonafide. However on the question of comparative hardship prescribed authority held that in case landlord had proved his bonafide need then release application would have been allowed as balance of hardship lay in favour of the landlord. Consequently prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 18.1.1990, rejected the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlord respondents filed R.C. Appeal No. 64 of 1990 against petitioners. A.D.J. Court No. 4, Varanasi through judgment and order dated 3.10.2002, allowed the appeal; set-aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlords hence this writ petition.

5. Appellate Court held that the finding of the trial Court that in Hardwa Bazaar landlords had a palatial house was against the records and there was no evidence on the record to show that the said house was quite big. The appellate Court also held that Hardwa Bazaar was 17 K.M. away from the city. Appellate Court also held that one of the brothers of landlord was residing with his in laws. The appellate Court rightly held that if a landlord wants to shift from the village to city particularly for the purpose of education his need can never be said to be not bonafide. Actually prescribed authority had given fantastic suggestion to the landlord. The prescribed authority expressed the opinion that as students from adjoining areas of Varanasi were daily coming to Varanasi for education hence those family members of the landlord who were studying in Varanasi could also do the same thing. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. U.I. Insurance Company, AIR 1999 SC 100 [LQ/SC/1998/1047] has held that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.

6. According I do not find least error in the findings of the lower Appellate Court in respect of bonafide need of the landlords.

7. As far as comparative hardship is concerned even the prescribed authority has held that it lay in favour of the landlord. The original tenant was Railway employee and could very well get Railway accommodation. Even otherwise tenants are enjoying the property on payment of only Rs. 9.50/- monthly rent, which is virtually as well as actually no rent. In this manner they must have saved a lot of money. Money saved is money gained. The original tenant or after his death the petitioners did not show that what efforts were made by them to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application.

8. Accordingly I do not find any error in the findings of comparative hardship also recorded by both the Courts below against the petitioner.

9. In view of the above there is not merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.

10. Tenants-petitioners are granted six months time to vacate provided that-

(1) Within one month from today they file an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent.

(2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioners to vacate they are required to pay Rs. 3000/- (at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent.

11. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant petitioners shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.

12. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing the amount of Rs. 3000/- the shop in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation.