- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard Sri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared through caveat.
(2.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceeding initiated by landlady- respondent against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 in the form of PA. Case No. 113 of 2005. Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Varanasi allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 28. 1. 2008. Against the said order, R. C. Appeal No. 20 of 2008 was filed, which was dismissed on 14. 5. 2008 by A. D. J. Court No. 9, Varanasi hence this writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 400/- per month. In the release application, it was pleaded that the husband of the landlady lost his eye sight 24 years' before and only her eldest son was employed and shop was required for other members of the family. 4, Landlady's family consists of herself, her husband, two sons and four daughters. Both the sons and one daughter were married when the release appli cation was filed. The Trial Court found that the need of the landlady was bona fide and in my opinion-rightly. No other commercial accommodation available to the landlady was pointed out by the tenant. Apart from eldest son, no other family member of the landlady is doing any service or business. In respect of compara tive hardship, both the Courts below held that the tenant did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation. 5. I do not find any error in the concurrent findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by both the Courts below in favour of the landlady. One of the sons of landlady is neither employed anywhere nor doing any busi ness. The daughters of the landlady are also not doing any job. The need, there fore stands completely proved. Tenant is having his own house, which means that his financial condition is good. Tenant did not make any effort to search alterna tive accommodation, accordingly, balance of hardship tilts against him vide B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR2003 SC 2713. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments and orders. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Tenant-petitioner is granted one year's time to vacate provided that: (1) Within one month from today petitioner tenant files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of one year he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. (2) For this period of one year, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6. 000/- (at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month) as rent/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. 8. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-peti tioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 6, 000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 9. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 6000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of one year then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after one year till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application. .;