JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - In January 1982, the landlord retired from a Government Service and since then is unemployed. He sought release of the premises, which are occupied by Moti Lal Sharma, the tenant, and petitioner before this Court. Consequent upon his retirement the plea before the Prescribed Authority in seeking release of the accommodation was basically, to augment income over and above the pension, which the landlord was receiving. Thus, the need for the shop to have a business of his own toward off financial worries after retirement. 2. In his defence the tenant-petitioner contended that he ran a business as a goldsmith from the premises in dispute and the landlord did not have need for these premises. He contended, that the landlord could have no financial worries and this plea of the landlord was not bona fide, as his children were working and he had sufficient monies available to him from his pension and the income of his children. 3. The landlord answered this plea by placing on record that there is no vocation of goldsmith, which the tenant carries on from the shop in question as it was closed most of the time. The landlord submitted that the tenant was profitely engaged as a goldsmith for a substantial part of the year with a firm in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, known as Messrs Mehta Singh and Sons Jewellers. 4. In so far as the tenants plea that the landlord is not in straitened, circumstance and that he has enough income from his children to keep the family together along with his pension, the submission is misconceived and ridiculous. No person after his retirement would intentionally and happily like to be a dependent upon his children and thus, this is no defence which the tenant could take up. The depression of King Lear afflicts every retired employee if he were to be subjected to live as a dependant on his children. 5. In reference to the business, which the petitioner tenant may be carrying on as a goldsmith from the shop in dispute, the best evidence was with the tenant by producing a licence of a goldsmith if issued under the Gold Control Act, 1968. The last defence of the petitioner was that he did not carry on any business in Srinagar with a firm carrying on Jewellery business. The last defence of the petitioner was that he did not carry on any business in Srinagar with a firm carrying on Jewellery business. The tenant, if he so desires, could have filed an affidavit from a responsible person of this firm, to the effect, that the petitioner had no concern with the firm so far as business was concerned. This, also the petitioner did not do. 6. Thus, there is no error or illegality in the order of the courts below to occasion interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner is, thus dismissed. 8. After this order has been pronounced, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of this court that the court may consider grant of time to the tenant to vacate the accommodation and that his client would acquiesce to the order of this court and deliver vacant possession to the landlord without let or hindrance and peaceably within the period set by this court. This court has considered the prayer made, and on the facts and circumstances of this case, grants six months time to the tenant effective from the date of the judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Dehradun dated 8th May 1987. 9. The tenant is not present before this court. Learned Counsel contends that his son is. 10. This court directs that an undertaking by an affidavit be brought on record. In Addition to the affidavit which has been filed before this court by way of an undertaking, the petitioner will file his personal affidavit before the court of the Prescribed Authority Dehradun, in case No. 49 of 1984, Ramakant v. Moti Lal, to the effect that within six months from the date of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dated 8th May 1987 he would deliver vacant and peaceable possession of the accommodation to the landlord without any let or hindrance and during the period of occupation he would continue to pay the same amount for use and occupation of the premises which he had neither to paid as rent. Such an undertaking will be filed by the petitioner by a personal affidavit or before 31st May, 1987. Such an undertaking will be filed by the petitioner by a personal affidavit or before 31st May, 1987. In case such an undertaking is not filed by the petitioner before the court of the Prescribed Authority within the time stipulated, the indulgence granted by this court shall stand withdrawn, without any further clarification from this court, and the petitioner tenant will be liable to be evicted forthwith. 11. A copy of this order may be delivered to the learned Counsel for the petitioner within twenty four hours against an urgent application.