JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - Surendra Verma is landlord of house No. 4118, Baluaganj, Agra, Virendra Nath Sharma was its tenant. An application for release of the aforesaid house was made by Surendra Verma. The ground on which release was sought was that he needed the house for himself because he had retired from service and had no other house for residence at Agra. For the time being he was living with a friend in Idgah Colony, Agra as a matter of concession. 2. The application was resisted by the tenant on various grounds one of which was that the landlord was seeking the release of the house only with a view to put pressure upon him to enhance the rent. It was also pleaded that having regard to the comparative hardship which was likely to be caused to the parties, an order of release of the house was not called for. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. 3. The Second Additional Civil Judge, Agra as the prescribed Authority considered the evidence on record at some length and, Caine to the conclusion that the accommodation was needed bona fide by the landlord. He also concluded that the hardship likely to result to the landlord by refusal of permission to him to occupy the house himself was greater is compared to the one likely to be caused to the tenant in case the prayer for release was granted. On these findings, the application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed by the learned Civil Judge by order dated November 11, 1978. 4. The tenant assailed the order in appeal under section 22 of the Act. It may be mentioned that Virendra Nath Sharma died during the pendency of the appeal and his son and daughter were brought on the record as his heirs. The appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 419 of 1978) was heard by the 12th Additional District Judge. Agra. He went into the evidence a fresh. On a detailed consideration of the material on record, the learned Judge affirmed the conclusion of the prescribed Authority both in respect of the bona fide need of the land- lords as also on the question of comparative hardship. This was by an order of October 23, 1982. The order under appeal was up held. On a detailed consideration of the material on record, the learned Judge affirmed the conclusion of the prescribed Authority both in respect of the bona fide need of the land- lords as also on the question of comparative hardship. This was by an order of October 23, 1982. The order under appeal was up held. The present writ petition by Anurag Sharma and Manju Sharma, the son and daughter respectively of Virendra Nath Sharma assails both these orders. 5. The two questions which were to be determined by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority were, firstly, whether the landlord had any bona fide need for the accommodation and, secondly, whether greater hardship would be caused to him in the event of the denial of the release of the accommodation in his favour. On both these aspects, the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority have, after detailed consideration of the material on record, concluded against the tenant. It has not been possible for the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to point out any such error in these two orders which may be characterised as apparent errors of law. The finding on the two questions being finding on pure questions of fact is not liable to be disturbed by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference in their favour by this court with the impugned orders. The petition deserves to fail and is dismissed but the patties are left to bear their own costs. 6. When the aforesaid order was dictated in open court. learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that some reasonable time be allowed to the petitioners to vacate the disputed house so that they may be able, in the meanwhile, to find some suitable accommodation for themselves. It has been urged in connection with this request that finding of an alternative accommodation at Agra is not very easy. learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that some reasonable time be allowed to the petitioners to vacate the disputed house so that they may be able, in the meanwhile, to find some suitable accommodation for themselves. It has been urged in connection with this request that finding of an alternative accommodation at Agra is not very easy. Having considered the aforesaid prayer I direct that the petitioners will have four months time to vacate the house in dispute provided : (a) The petitioners file an undertaking- in writing before the Prescribed Authority within a month from today to the effect that before expiry of four months from today shall handover vacant possession of the house to the landlord, and, (b) Within the same period, deposit with the Prescribed Authority the amount, if any, due from them for remaining in possession of the house for the entire period including these four months which amount, if deposited, may be withdrawn by the landlord. 7. In case of default on the part of the petitioners in complying with any of these two conditions, it would be open to the landlord to proceed to recover possession of the premises from them in accordance with law. 8. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties within a week on furnishing necessary charges.