JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhawan, J. - This is a tenant's petition, The premises are a shop. The landlord moved an application under Section 21 (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. seeking release of the shop in possession of the tenant on the ground that his son has come of age and needs to be set up in business by setting a general merchandise store. The shop is in the vicinity of the landlord's house. 2. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application and the IVth Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, confirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23-9-1985 that the shop in question be released in favour of the landlord. 3. In appeal before the Additional District Judge only three issued were debated. First, that the Prescribed Authority was not a validly instituted court. Second, the application of the landlord was not bona fide in seeking release of the accommodation and, third, if the accommodation is released the hardship would be greater to the tenant. The first point challenging the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to constitute a court was argued unsuccessfully and subsequently given up. 4. On the other two issues the appellate court while confirming the order of the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the issues raised by the tenant that the landlord's son was a minor and could not be set up in business was misconceived. This son who was to be set up in business was of 17 years in 1984 and thus grown up to handle business of his own and that it was not a valid plea on behalf of the tenant that he was a minor. The learned Additional District Judge gave a finding that the landlord's son was a major and in effect, capable of handling business. The aspect which weighed with the learned Additional District Judge was that the landlord did not have any order alternative accommodation where he could set up his son in business. This fact was not denied by the tenant. On the other hand the tenant had a godown in a commercial area and it was impractical if the tenant were to shift his business to this godown. This fact was not denied by the tenant. On the other hand the tenant had a godown in a commercial area and it was impractical if the tenant were to shift his business to this godown. Weighing the hardships of the two, learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that whereas the tenant had an alternative accommodation, the landlord did not, and it would cause injustice if the application of the landlord seeking release of the shop in question was to be rejected. The learned Additional District Judge had further observed that nothing has, been placed on record by the tenant to show that he has been making genuine and bona fide efforts to secure any other accommodation notwithstanding the fact that he does have an alternative accommodation. 5. In the circumstances narrated above, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitutions with the decisions of the two courts below. Thus this petition is dismissed. 6. After this order was dictated learned Counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of the court for permission to the effect that this court may consider granting reasonable time to vacate the accommodation. The learned Additional District Judge has granted only 15 days' time to the tenant to deliver vacant possession of the shop. The Court has considered this request and regard being had to the fact, that the premises are a shop, it would by appropriate that the tenant is granted time till 31st July, 1987 to clear out of the premises in question. Subject to the tenant filing an affidavit before the Court of the Prescribed Authority, Pilibhit in P.A. Case No. 20 of 1984 Navendra Ram v. Shanti Prasad, to the effect that he would vacate the accommodation in question on or before 31st July, 1987 and deliver peaceable possession to the landlord without let or hindrance. The petitioner may remain in the accommodation till the time granted by the Court. During the period of occupation he will continue to pay the same amount for use and occupation of the premises which he had hither to been paying as rent. In case this undertaking by an affidavit is not filed by 30th April, 1987 the indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically stand with drawn and the petitioner shall be liable to be evicted from the premises forthwith by police force, if necessary. 7. In case this undertaking by an affidavit is not filed by 30th April, 1987 the indulgence granted by this Court shall automatically stand with drawn and the petitioner shall be liable to be evicted from the premises forthwith by police force, if necessary. 7. A copy of this order may be supplied to the petitioner within two days on payment of usual charges.