JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petition is directed against an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge allowing an appeal as well as an application filed by the respondent-landlady under section 21(l)(a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The aforesaid application was filed on the assertion that a portion of the building in which the landlady and his family is at present residing was let out to Shri N. D. Bhargava. At present the wife and son of Shri N. D. Bhargava are residing in this portion as tenants. The eldest son of the landlady namely Sri Har Dayal Gupta who was employed as a Section Officer in the Directorate of General Health Services, New Delhi has retired in the month of November, 1979, as a consequence of which he had to vacate the official residence which was allotted to him. The landlady's second son Sri Chokhey Lal Gupta is also a clerk in the Ministry of Food and Plantation and he is also due to retire. He will also have to vacate the Government premises allotted to him. Both these sons of the landlady propose to reside with the applicant. The family of these two sons consists of 17 members. In the accommodation at present in occupation of the landlady it would he impossible to accommodate the two families of Har Dayal and Chokey Lal The tenant on the other hand is a person of substantial means paying huge Income-tax and Wealth-tax. He has also a house of his own at Ujhiyani which is a very big building consisting of a guest house and a number of shops. He would, therefore, not suffer any particular hardship if evicted. 3. The application was contested by the petitioner, who is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute. He asserted that the landlady did not bona fide require the accommodation. The tenant does not have any suitable alternative accommodation where he might shift in the event of being. evicted. He would, therefore, sutler much greater hardship than the landlady. 4. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding that the need of the landlady was neither bona fide nor pressing. Aggrieved, the landlady filed an appeal which has been allowed. 5. The tenant does not have any suitable alternative accommodation where he might shift in the event of being. evicted. He would, therefore, sutler much greater hardship than the landlady. 4. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding that the need of the landlady was neither bona fide nor pressing. Aggrieved, the landlady filed an appeal which has been allowed. 5. The appellate court has found upon a very careful and exhaustive consideration, of the relevant facts and circumstances established by the evidence led by the landlady that she bona fide requires the accommodation to enable her aforesaid two sons to reside in the building in question. There is no other accommodation available with the landlady where the families of her two sons mentioned above could be conveniently accommodated. On the issue of relative hardship also the appellate court has found in favour of the landlady. The application was consequently allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to challenge the correctness of the findings of the appellate court on both the issues namely bona fide need of the landlady as well as comparative hardship. He was, however, unable to point out any error whatsoever, much less one apparent on the face of the record which might have been committed by the appellate court. I have examined the findings recorded by the appellate court and to my mind both the conclusions reached by the appellate court are perfectly sound and are fully justified by the material on the record. The families of Har Dayal and Chokhey Lal, the two sons of the landlady who have retired from service are large. There is absolutely no accommodation available with the landlady where the families of these two sons could be accommodated. The appellate court has considered the need of the landlady and has rightly come to the conclusion that she bona fide required the disputed accommodation for the residence of the members of her family. 7. The finding of the appellate court on the issue of relative hardship is equally unexceptionable. The appellate court has considered the circumstances of the two parties. 7. The finding of the appellate court on the issue of relative hardship is equally unexceptionable. The appellate court has considered the circumstances of the two parties. It has considered the hardship likely to be caused to the landlady by the rejection of her application arising from a total absence of any available accommodation for accommodating the families of either of the two retiring sons of the landlady and compared the same with the circumstances of the tenant. The appellate court has found that the tenant is a person of affluent means paying both Income-tax and Wealth- tax and he could easily afford to rent another house. The appellate court has also pointed out that the tenant has another accommodation at Ujhiyani. On a consideration of the various facts and circumstances, the appellate court has rightly concluded that as between the landlady and the tenant the former would suffer greater hardship. The finding of the appellate court is not vitiated by any error of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer that they might be granted some time to shift to another accommodation at Aligarh and for this purpose time until 30th of June, 1983 might be granted to him. Learned counsel has also conve,ed to this court that the petitioner shall handover vacant possession of the accommodation in dispute to the respondent-landlady on or before 30th of June, 1983. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlady has not seriously contested this request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The result of the aforesaid discussion therefore, is that this petition fails and is dismissed, but I make no orders as to costs. The eviction of the petitioner is, however, stayed in view of the facts stated above until the 30th of June, 1983 provided that the petitioner shall handover peacefully vacate possession of the disputed accommodation to the respondent- landlady on or before 30th of June, 1983. The petitioner shall also not directly or indirectly induct any other person into the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner shall also not directly or indirectly induct any other person into the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner shall, however, pay to the respondent-landlady or deposit with the Prescribed Authority the entire amount due as damages for use and occupation calculated at the rate of rent for the period beginning from 1st of October, 1982 until 30th of June, 1983 within three months from today failing which it will be open to the landlady to apply for the ejectment of the petitioner forthwith.