JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhawan, J. - The tenants are facing eviction in persuance of an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 by which the landlords sought release of the premises at No. 268, Mohalla Miyapura, City Ghazipur. The Prescribed Authority granted release of the premises and the eviction of the tenants the petitioners before this court, by an order, of 13th January, 1984 in Rent Case No. 72/83. The tenants, filed an appeal before IIIrd Addl. District and Sessions Judge. This was Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 1984. The District Judge, aforesaid, affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority by a judgment or 23rd January, 1987 directing eviction of the tenants within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. 2. The tenants permitted three months to pass and utilise the time o,anted by the District Judge in appeal, and did not deliver vacant possession to the landlord, but have come before this court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The District Judge in appeal while affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority issued a commission for inspection of the accommodation available to the parties. The District Judge also inspected the premises, the release of which was sought and the alternate accommodation suggested by the tenants, as also the house which are owned by the tenants. 4. The District Judge was satisfied that upon passing the M.B.B.S. course the landlord's wife, Ruksana Shamim, required the accommodation for running her clinic. The landlord's wife needed the premises in question for setting up her practise as a Doctor. The landlord himself draws a basic salary below Rs. 500 by serving as a clerk at a local college at Allahabad. The landlord belongs to Ghazipur and he would like to settle there with his wife. The landlord contended that it is not possible for his wife to set up her practise as a Doctor in a rented house at Allahabad. When he has one of his own at Ghazipur. There is no alternative accommodation available with the landlord end the one suggested by the tenants is in fact occupied by other tenants. 5. The landlord contended that it is not possible for his wife to set up her practise as a Doctor in a rented house at Allahabad. When he has one of his own at Ghazipur. There is no alternative accommodation available with the landlord end the one suggested by the tenants is in fact occupied by other tenants. 5. The Court below observed that the premises required by the landlord is otherwise ideally suited for running a clinic as it is strong in construction, has a big hall, four side rooms, a verandah and a court-yard and is at the side of a road. 6. As for the accommodation in dispute is concerned, it has not been denied by the tenants that it is essentially a residential accommodation, but it is being utilised for running an ordinance factory. 7. The tenants are manufacturing cartridges and ammunition from a residential accommodation. It has been contended at the Bar of this court that it is net possible for the tenants to shift to any other accommodation as their licence for manufacturing ammunition is from the present premises. This is a misconceived plea in defence in a matter under the Act, aforesaid. The tenants have objection to the landlord setting up his wife in practise as a Doctor in an accommodation owned by him and yet have no hesitation in utilising the same accommodation for manufacturing gun cartridges. It is on record of the courts below that the Tenants have other accommodation where they reside. The premises in dispute they are utilising manufacturing ammunition. 8. The District Judge observed that the tenants have two accommodation of their own, the one in mohalla Dadrighat Thakurdwara, which is in the name of the appellant, the petitioner No. 2 here, where the tenants reside. The premises have sufficient accommodation. The other accommodation which was in the name of Jagdeep Singh husband of the petitioner No. 2 and father of the petitioner No. 1, 3 and 4 is being utilised for running a school. 9. The District Judge relied on the first explanation to sub-section (1)) of Section 21, which in fact stipulates that if the tenant acquires a house of his own in a vacant state he cannot object on an application of the an landlord seeking release of the premises. 9. The District Judge relied on the first explanation to sub-section (1)) of Section 21, which in fact stipulates that if the tenant acquires a house of his own in a vacant state he cannot object on an application of the an landlord seeking release of the premises. In the instant case, the tenants were found to have their residence in the newly constructed house at Dadrighat and were utilising the landlord's premises for manufacturing ammunition. In the latter the tenants could not resist the application of the landlord for seeking release of the premises. There is no error in the judgment of the Court below and the District Judge has rightly affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority by which the tenants were directed to deliver possession to the landlord. This court declines to interfere with the Judgment or the IIIrd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, dated 21st January, 1987 and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. After this Court had announced its decision, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of the court if his client could be permitted to remain in the accommodation for another three months, on the ground that in the meantime the business of manufacturing ammunition and cartridges under a licence could be wound up and shifted to another premises. An affidavit has been offered containing an undertaking that the tenants would deliver peaceable possession to the landlords at the end of three months without let or hindrance. This court has considered the request and accepts the undertaking of the tenants offered by an affidavit filed today. 11. On or before 20th July, 1987 the tenants will deliver vacant possession of the premises without any let or hindrence to the landlords. During the period of occupation, they will continue to pay the same amount which they had neither to pay as rent, after 20th July, 1987, the tenants aforesaid, will be liable to eviction forthwith, if necessary by force by the District Magistrate, who will otherwise ensure that vacant possession is delivered to the landlords. 12. A certified copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar, High Court, to the Prescribed Authority/Munsif Ghazipur, in Rent Control Case No. 72 of 1983, Shamim Ahmad and other v. Sardar Jagdeep Singh. 13. 12. A certified copy of this order will be sent by the Registrar, High Court, to the Prescribed Authority/Munsif Ghazipur, in Rent Control Case No. 72 of 1983, Shamim Ahmad and other v. Sardar Jagdeep Singh. 13. This court is not impressed with the conduct of the tenants that first they utilised the indulgence granted by the IIIrd Additional District Judge to remain in accommodation and then they seek similar indulgence from this court. The discretion is being exercised to resolve the problem of the landlord, finally, as the tenants have acquired to the order of this court, by which the judgements of the two courts below have been certified to be correct. 14. A certified copy of this order may be issued to learned Counsel for the petitioner within two days on payment of requisite charges.