S.U. Khan, J.This is tenants writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 1 Bishan Prasad on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 4 of 1991 on the file of Prescribed Authority /Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shahjahanpur. Release application was filed against the tenant Bankey Lal, who died during pendency of proceedings before the courts below and was survived and substituted by petitioner and proforma respondents 2 to 7.

2. Property in dispute is a shop. Landlord pleaded that he required the shop in dispute for settling his elder son Ram Prakash in business. Dimensions of the shop in dispute are about 9 feet x 13 feet.

3. The tenant pleaded that landlord had two other shops in which he could settle his son Ram Prakash. A Commission was issued who submitted his report dated 10.8.1992 along with the map. Copy of the report is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In the map of the Commissioner at page 44 of the paper book of the writ petition, the two shops alleged to be available to the landlord are shown to be situated towards south of the shop in dispute. In the southernmost shop the other son of the landlord Jitendra is doing business of selling Paan In the shop just adjacent to the shop in dispute and situate towards south thereof, landlord is doing the business of repairing the utensils. Dimension of the said shop is 6 feet x 4 feet 5 inches. Commissioner found that in the house of the landlord which was adjacent to the said shops, some machinery etc. was kept which was used for repairing the utensils. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application through judgment and order dated 14.11.1995 against which landlord filed Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1996. VII A.D.J. Shahjahanpur allowed the appeal on 15.12.2003 hence this writ petition by tenant.

4. The Appellate Court held that no shop was available to the landlord for settling his son Ram Prakash in business. Landlord is entitled to settle all of his sons in separate business. Hence shop occupied by the other son of the landlord cannot be said to be available for settling Ram Prakash in business. As far as the shop adjacent to the shop; in dispute is concerned, it is being used by the landlord. The mere fact that part of the actual repairing business is carried out inside the house does not mean that for having the customers landlord does not require a shop. In a small shop of 6 feet x 4 feet 5 inches all the repairing job of utensils including heating etc. cannot be done. If due to paucity of accommodation landlord is using his residential house also for the said purpose, it cannot be said that the residential house shall be used by the landlord for his business and the shop situated towards south of the shop in dispute shall be given by him to his son Ram Prakash. There is, therefore, no error in the finding of the lower appellate court holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide.

5. In respect of comparative hardship lower appellate court held that tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation. This was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant (vide B.C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, A.I.R. 2003 S.C 2713. The assertion of the tenant that Ram Prakash for whose need release was sought was employed in another shop, was meaningless. If a person is employed at another shop, it can not be said that he does not require his own shop bona fidely for starting the business. Rather the experience gained as a servant on another shop would be an asset to him to run his own shop.

6. The finding of the trial court that the landlord could ask his son Ram Prakash to assist him in his business of repairing utensils and stove was rather fantastic. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Susheela v. A.D.J., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 780 that landlord and every adult member of his family is entitled to have separate business. The other ground taken by the Prescribed Authority was that tenant wag doing his business from the shop in dispute since 1935 hence there was no justification to evict him. Mere long possession of tenant is no ground to reject the release application when bona fide need is clearly established. In this regard also reference may be made to the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Shushila (supra).

7. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

8. Tenant-petitioner and proforma respondents 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 accommodation in dispute to the landlord-respondent.

(2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the tenants 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.

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

9. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3000/- are not deposited within one month then tenants 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.

10. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on or before the 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.