JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Jagdish, respondent No. 3, filed an application under section 21(l)(a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that he needs the same for his personal occupation. This release application was filed against both the petitioners, Dharam Das and Hira Lal. 3. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 22nd July, 1981, dismissed the release application in so far as the petitioner Durga Das in concerned in its entirely' so far as Hira Lal, petitioner No. 2, is and one room was released in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved, two rent appeals were filed under section 22 of the Act, one by Jagdish, the landlord, and the other by Hira Lal, the tenant. Both the appeals came up for hearing before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Varanasi, who, by his judgment and order dated 19th August, 1985, dismissed the appeal filed by Hira Lal and allowed the appeal of Jagdish. The ultimate result was that the release application of the landlord was allowed both in respect of the petitioner no. 1, Durga Das as well as Hira Lal, petitioner No. 2. Both these petitioners have now challenged the order dated 19th August, 1985, in this court. 4. The petition was filed on 12th September, 1985, The petitioners were directed to serve the respondent no. 3. Service was effected and now counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. 5. I have heard Sri Sidheshwari Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri R.C. Srivastava on behalf of the respondent No 3. 6. The lower appellants court, on a consideration of the evidence on the record, has recorded a categorical finding of fact that there are 14 members in the family of the landlord, including four couples. On considering the requirement of the landlord, the appellate court came to the conclusion that, in fact, the landlord requires at least twelve rooms with separate latrine and bath rooms Since the disputed accommodation consists of five rooms, a further finding was recorded that these five rooms would be required as additional accommodation for the comfortable living of the landlord. 7. 7. I have examined the petition counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit. I do not find any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the lower appellate court. On the question of hardship also, it has been found by the lower appellate court that so far as the petitioner Durga Das is concerned, his sons have purchased a plot in the city of Varanasi and that they have constructed a house on the said plot. In regard to Hira Lal. it has been found that Hira Lal is not residing in the disputed house and he has shifted to some other accommodation. Considering these findings, recorded by the lower appellate court, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Specific reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on an averment made in this court that during the pendency of this petition, two rooms on the ground floor have fallen vacant and, as such, the requirement of the landlord has been met and, consequently, the release application should not be allowed. Though this fact has been disputed by the landlord, in any case, even for the take of arguments, if it is taken that these rooms have fallen vacant during the pendency of the writ petition then too even on the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the landlord requires twelve rooms for living then even if these rooms are added to the existing five rooms then too only seven rooms come in occupation of the landlord. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is affected by the fact that the additional rooms have fallen vacant during the pendency of the writ petition. In the circumstances, this averment also would not assist the petitioners. 9. In the result, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that he may be riven sufficient time to vacate the premises. This prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner No. 1. Durga Das. So far as Hira Lal is concerned, there is already a finding by the lower appellate court that Hira Lal is not residing in the accommodation in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that he may be riven sufficient time to vacate the premises. This prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner No. 1. Durga Das. So far as Hira Lal is concerned, there is already a finding by the lower appellate court that Hira Lal is not residing in the accommodation in dispute. Durga Das is present in court and in undertaking has been given by the learned counsel on instructions from Durga Das that he will vacate the premises immediately after the expiry of six months and will hand over vacant possession of the premises to Jagdish landlord. In view of this undertaking, I grant six month's time to the petitioner No. 1. The release order shall not be executed till six months against the petitioner No. I. Durga Das, so far as Hira Lal, petitioner no. 2, is concerned, the decree can be executed. 11. A copy of the order may be given to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges within two days.