JUDGMENT : A.N. DIKSHITA, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has sought the relief of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15-11-1980 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Bareilly, Respondent No. 1. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that Smt. Naraini, landlady, owner of premises No. 561 Siklapur, Bareilly, who is Respondent No. 3 to the petition, filed an application u/s 21 of U.P. Am XIII of 1972 as amended upto date for the release of the accommodation in occupation of the Petitioner in his capacity as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. It was stated in the release application by Respondent No. 3 that she being all alone had let out the lower portion to the Petitioner. It has also been alleged in the said application that the Petitioner assaulted Respondent No. 3, the landlady, on 22-1-1978 and again on 25-5-1978 for which a first Information report was lodged. Being scared on account of such assaults and threatening postures of the Petitioner the Respondent No. 3 requested her mother-in-law to live with her and to which request the latter acceded. 2-A. The Respondent No. 3 needed the accommodation in the occupation of the Petitioner for her own use and occupation. It was also stated by Respondent No. 3 in her release application that the Petitioner had in his possession a big palatial parental house where he could conveniently shift without any hardship, The release application was filed by Respondent No. 3 as early as 1-6-1978. 3. The Petitioner contested the application for release filed by Respondent No. 3 denying the allegations as contained in the said application. The accommodation was occupied by the Petitioner in the year 1971 and he had improved the same for a comfortable living by investing an approximate sum of Rs. 4000/-. The Petitioner though admitting the existence of a parental house denied that there was any extra accommodation to accommodate him as his brothers were residing therein. 4. Necessary affidavits and counter-affidavits were filed by the parties in support of their respective contentions. 5. The Prescribed Authority (Munsif City, Bareilly) dismissed the application for release vide order dated 17-11-1979 holding that the landlady, Respondent No. 3, had no genuine need and further that even on comparison the need of the Petitioner was greater than that of Respondent No. 3. 6. 5. The Prescribed Authority (Munsif City, Bareilly) dismissed the application for release vide order dated 17-11-1979 holding that the landlady, Respondent No. 3, had no genuine need and further that even on comparison the need of the Petitioner was greater than that of Respondent No. 3. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority the Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal to the court of the District Judge, Bareilly which was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No. 12 of 1980. The said appeal was transferred to the court of VI Additional District Judge, Bareilly, for disposal according to law. 7. The appellate court after hearing the counsel for the parties at length allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 17-11-1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court allowed the application u/s 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 filed by Respondent No. 3 and released the accommodation in occupation of the Petitioner in favour of Respondent No. 3 with a direction that the Petitioner shall vacate the disputed portion within three months and deliver possession of the same to the landlady. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate court the Petitioner has preferred the instant petition. 9. The appellate court after appraising the evidence and examining the facts on record has come to the conclusion that the need of Respondent No. 3 was genuine and imminent. In the case of Kailesh Chand Jain v. Additional District Judge 1979 ARC 481 it was held that mental hardship is a relevant consideration for determining the need of the landlord. The appellate court has found that Respondent No. 3 being a widow and living alone had clearly made out a case and her need to accommodate her mother-in-law for providing her suitable protection was a bonafide one. On the basis of the material before him the appellate court (the VI Additional District Judge, Bareilly) came to an irresistible conclusion that it was a case of mental hardship making out a case in favour of Respondent No. 3. The appellate court also considered the question of hardship likely to be caused to the Petitioner and on a comparison came to the conclusion that the Petitioner can conveniently shift to his parental house. The appellate court also considered the question of hardship likely to be caused to the Petitioner and on a comparison came to the conclusion that the Petitioner can conveniently shift to his parental house. The obdurate resistance of the Petitioner to stick to the portion in dispute and not to shift to his own house was also considered by the appellate court and assessing the evidence and facts on record came to the conclusion that the Petitioner can shift to his own house where he may raise necessary construction to cater his need. The questions of hardship as well as the need both were considered by the appellate court and the release application of Respondent No. 3 was then allowed. 10. I have perused the order passed by the appellate court and it is clearly borne out that the learned Additional District Judge has very adequately considered the need of Respondent No. 3 as well as the comparative convenience and hardship to the parties. Such decision was arrived at by Respondent No. 1 on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and available on record. The findings recorded by the appellate court are findings of fact which while sitting in this extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court does not have the power either to re-appraise the evidence or re-consider and weigh the material on record. The order passed by Respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any manifest error of law inviting interference by this Court. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then prayed that some time be granted to the Petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute. Though the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy having frustrated the bonafide need of Respondent No. 3 for about seven years, still in the interest of justice it is expedient that time upto 31st December, 1985 may be allowed to the Petitioner to vacate the portion in dispute subject to the condition that the Petitioner pays the entire amount due from him to be computed till 31-12-1985 to Respondent No. 3 within a month from today failing which the Petitioner shall be liable to be evicted from the accommodation in dispute forthwith on the expiry of one month. 12. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. 12. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the Petitioner is allowed six month's time to vacate the premises in dispute in his occupation subject to the condition that he pays the entire amount due from him to be computed till 31-12-1985 to Respondent No. 3 within a month from today. In case of default on the part of the Petitioner in making payment of all the dues to Respondent No. 3 within one month from today he shall be liable to be evicted forthwith on the expiry of one month according to law.