S.U. Khan, J.This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent No. 2 Trijugi Narain on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

2. Property in dispute consists of two shops, rent of which is only Rs. 12.50 per month. Release application was registered as Rent Case No. 209 of 1980. Prescribed Authority/Munsif Hawaii Kanpur rejected the release application on 19.11.1982 against which landlord respondent No. 2 filed Rent Appeal No. 7 of 1983. Appeal was allowed on 28.5.1992 by V A.D.J. Kanpur, hence this writ petition.

3. Landlord pleaded that he had three major sons, Satish Narain, Sri Narain and Sri Krishna Narain. It was further pleaded that landlord had one shop in his possession in which he was doing business of sell ball bearings. It was further stated that all his sons were having experience of the said business and they required separate shops for establishing their separate independent business. Release application was filed in the year 1980. After one year i.e. In the year 1981 another shop came in the possession of the landlord in which he settled his eldest son Satish Narain. Another shop in the tenancy occupation of another tenant had been released by Prescribed Authority in favour of the landlord, as observed by the lower Appellate Court. Tenants appeal against the said release order was pending. One godown/shop was also allotted by some local authority of Kanpur to daughter in-law of the landlord. Landlord stated that his daughter in law was also doing independent business. In any case, the said shop which was allotted to the daughter in law was in an underground premises more suitable to be used as godown than a shop. The Lower Appellate Court after taking all these factors into consideration rightly held that the need of the landlord was quite bonafide as he required four shops in total - one for himself and three for his sons. No fault can be found with the said finding. The Prescribed Authority had unnecessarily laid great emphasis on the fact that the shop which came in possession of the landlord during pendency of the release application was not mentioned in the release application through amendment. The landlord during pendency of release application clearly admitted that one shop had become available to which was quite sufficient to satisfy his total need.

4. On the one hand, landlord does not have sufficient shops to settle all his sons in business and on the other hand, tenant has got several shops available to him and few of them have been let out by him. Tenant also pleaded that one of the sons of landlord had started business from a room of his residential house. Appellate Court found that only office of the Firm of which the son of the landlord was partner/proprietor had been opened in the residential house. In any case if due to paucity of accommodation residential room is used for commercial purpose then it can not be said that need for commercial accommodation stands satisfied. Rather it reinforces allegation of the landlord that he is in need of commercial accommodation.

5. Tenant has got two shops in premises No. 28/31 Silpi Mohal. Apart from it in that very locality in which shops in dispute are situate i.e. Ghumni Bazaar, tenant has got two premises bearing No. 31/75 and 31/76. The said premises are only at a distance of 10 paces from the shop in dispute. According to the Commissioners report in premises No. 31/75 there is shop in which there were 30 Almirahs and it was being used as store for keeping ball-bearings and connected materials. According to the Commissioner in premises No. 31/76 also there were 3 rooms which contained the bali bearings and connected items. Apart from it in Phoolwali Gali, Kanpur tenant has got house No. 93/140 in which there are 9 shops and 7 godowns. According to the tenant all these shops and godowns are let out. Tenant did not show that he initiated any eviction proceedings against his tenants after filing of the release application against him. In Para 3 of the writ petition the tenant-petitioner has himself admitted that he has got several shops. The only thing which has been stated is that in premises No. 93/140 there are 8 shops but they are occupied by tenants and that it is situated in Anwariganj, which is not a market of all bearings.

6. In this manner it is quite clear that tenant is in such more advantageous position than the landlord and he has got more than a dozen shops. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court.

7. The writ petition is dismissed.

8. In view of the fact that tenant has got more than a dozen shops question of part release does not arise. This point was not raised by the tenant either before the Courts below or before this Court. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that:

(1) Within one month from today he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months he will willingly vacated and handover possession of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord-respondent.

(2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the tenant to vacate he is required to pay Rs. 6000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1000/- 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.

In case of default in compliance with either of these conditions, tenant-petitioner shall be evicted after one month through process of Court.

It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 6000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.

Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 6000/- the accommodation 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.