JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - A tenant has filed a petition in this Court impugning two concurrent judgments by which an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the premises at 114 Elliot Road, Kanpur have been released in favour of the landlord, one Smt. Sita Devi Shukla. 2. The landlord purchased this accommodation by a sale deed on 23rd December 1974 which fact was mentioned in the notice to the tenant, dated 24th December 1979. Subsequently, an application seeking release of the accommodation was filed before the 1st Additional Civil Judge/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur giving rise to the Rent Case No. 224 of 1981 ; Smt. Sita Devi Shukla v. Sardar Beharilal Mathur. The release application was allowed by a decision dated 16th September 1983. Against this, the tenant filed an appeal before the 5th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, being Rent Appeal No. 223 of 1983; Sardar Behari Mathur v. Smt. Sita Devi Shukla. The learned Additional District Judge aforesaid affirmed the decision of the Prescribed Authority. 3. The appellate court considered and assessed the facts and the comparative hardships to the tenant if the release application was allowed and to the landlord if it was denied. The landlord and his family are residing in a single room apartment in the city of Kanpur. The family of the landlord is larger than that of the tenant; there being unmarried daughters and school going children. The appellate court was of the opinion that if the release application was rejected the landlord will face grater hardship than the tenant. The court below even considered an aspect proposed by the tenant. This was to release a part of the accommodation to the landlord. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that this would not solve any problems for the landlord as his position would be no better than residing at the one room apartment where the family resides at present. Upon facts, the two courts came to the conclusion that it was appropriate and in the interest of justice that the accommodation be released in favour of the owner. Accordingly this was done. 4. Thus, as the matter has been considered on facts, there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the decision of the two courts below under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly this was done. 4. Thus, as the matter has been considered on facts, there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the decision of the two courts below under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. After this order was dictated learned Counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of the Court by making a statement that the petitioner would acquiesce to the decision of this Court and this Court may consider granting reasonable time to the tenant to vacate the accommodation and deliver vacant possession to the owner. This Court has considered the request and feels that the request is not unreasonable and thus grants six months time to the tenant to vacate the accommodation and deliver vacant possession of it on or before 15th October 1987, peaceably without let or hindrance to the landlord, During the period of occupation till the accommodation is vacated, the tenant will continue to pay the same monetary consideration for use and occupation of the premises in question which he had paid as rent. This indulgence will not come into operation unless the tenant files an undertaking by an affidavit before the Court of the 1st Addl. Civil Judge/Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 224 of 1981; Smt. Sita Devi Shukla v. Sardar Beharilal Mathur. This undertaking by an affidavit will be filed before the Court aforesaid on or before 21st April 1987 after giving a copy of the affidavit to the learned respondent and her counsel. In case the undertaking is not filed by the date so stipulated, the indulgence granted shall withdrawn and the petitioner will be liable to eviction forthwith. 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.