S.U. Khan, J.This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated against him by landlady-respondent No. 3 Shrimati Khatoon Begum on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of Rent Case No. 87 of 1989 on the file of Prescribed Authority/A.C.M.M. VII, Kanpur Nagar. Prescribed Authority through judgment and order dated 17.10.1995 rejected the release application against which landlady respondent No. 3 filed R.C. Appeal No. 228 of 1995. VI A.D.J. Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 29`10.1999 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord, hence this writ petition by the tenant.

2. Property in dispute is a residential accommodation consisting of two rooms and other amenities. Father of landlady Sri Abdullah had let out the premises to the petitioner and his brother Asgar Ali, who had died leaving behind no Legal Representative. This fact is admitted in para 3 of the writ petition also. Before the Courts below as well as this Court,. tenant had very vehemently argued that Abdullah left behind two sons and two daughters including respondent No. 3, hence release application on behalf of respondent no. 3 alone was not maintainable. Respondent no. 3 had pleaded that in family partition house in dispute had come in her share. Even if family partition is ignored, it will not make any difference.It has been held in the Full Bench Authority of Gopal Das v. A.D.J., 1987 (1) A.R.C. 281 that even one of the co-landlords can file release application under Section 21 of theeven without implieading other co-landlords as proforma respondents.

3. As far as the bona fide need is concerned, landlady pleaded that her family consisted of 8 members i.e. herself, her husband, four sons out of whom one was married having a child. It was further pleaded that landlady had no house to live, hence in front of the house in dispute on the Government land she had placed a hut and her family was residing therein. This fact of having a hut in front of the house in dispute was admitted by the tenant with the rider that in the said hut husband of the landlady was carrying on the profession of sorcery. (Probably tenant was predicting Harry Potter era). It was further pleaded that on the top floor of the building, premises in dispute is part of which, landlady was having a room in which she was residing.

4. Appellate Court on the basis of Commissioners report and affidavits filed by both the parties held that at the top floor/second storey (or second floor) Tio residential accommodation was available to the landlady. Appellate Court also held in the alternative that even if it was assumed that one room was available to the landlady, it was quite insufficient for family of 8 members.

5. In respect of comparative hardship Appellate Court found that tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation, hence balance of hardship lay in favour of the landlady. This finding is perfectly in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2713. I do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court. Appellate Court rightly found that the landlady and her family members were residing in a hut in front of the house in dispute. In such situation by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the need of the landlady was not bona fide. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

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

7. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3000/- 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.

8. Similarly/if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3000 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.