ORDER A.N. Dikshita, J. - By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought the relief of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24-7-82 and 6-6-1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif and Addl. District Judge, Dehradun respectively. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that respondents No. 3 and 4 are the landlords of the premises No. 14/31 Chakrata Road, Dehradun. A portion of this premises is in the tenancy of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 is a joint Hindu Family firm and respondent No. 4 is the Karta of the joint Hindu Family which comprises 48 members. The family is residing in a portion of the said house and the other portion is in the occupation of the petitioner. An application for release on the ground of bona fide need was filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 which was contested by the other petitioners. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application and released the portion in occupation of the petitioner in favour of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by his Order dated 24-7-82. An appeal against the said Order was filed in the Court of the District Judge which was transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge. Dehradun for disposal. The learned Addl. District Judge also came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide and pressing and greater hardship would be caused to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in case the portion in dispute is not released in their favour. Against these two orders the prayer for certiorari has been made. 3. I have perused the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court and the issues as regards the need as well as the hardship were decided on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. The findings recorded thereon are findings of fact which while sitting in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not have the power to reappraise the evidence considered in the said two orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention that some time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one contention that some time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in question. Though the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy in the interest of justice it is expedient that six months' time may be allowed to the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the portion in dispute to the respondent No. 4 peacefully. 4. In the result the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall deliver the possession of the portion in his possession peacefully immediately on the expiry of six months from today.