JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Is by tenants of a kothari in a house owned by Ram Kishore Gupta, Opposite Party No. 1. 2. Ram Kishore Gupta, Opposite Party No. 1, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the petitioners pleading that the aforesaid kothari was required by him for establishing his son in kirana business. It was stated that the said son had passed B. Com. examination and was without any employment. 3. The application was contested by the petitioners who asserted that the son of the landlord was already engaged in business with other members of the family and, therefore, the plea set up by the landlord was not bona fide or genuine. It was further pleaded that the kothari in question had been let out to the petitioners for manufacturing purposes and therefore they were entitled to six months' notice under Section 206 of the Transfer of Property Act. The last defence of the petitioners was that the Opposite Party No. 1 was not the sole landlord of the accommodation in question and therefore the application at his instance alone was not maintainable. 4. Both the authorities below have recorded a positive finding of fact based on evidence on record that the son of Opposite Party No. 1 is not engaged in any business. As a corollary of this finding it has further been held that the need set up by the landlord was genuine and pressing. The two authorities below weighed the comparative hardship and came to the conclusion that Opposite Party No. 1 will suffer greater hardship from the rejection of the application than the petitioners will suffer from the application being allowed. On the basis of these findings the application of Ram Kishore Gupta was allowed and the order of eviction was passed against the petitioners. 5. In the present petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged all the aforesaid three grounds to assail the orders of the two authorities below. The finding on the plea of need is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in the present proceedings. 5. In the present petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged all the aforesaid three grounds to assail the orders of the two authorities below. The finding on the plea of need is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in the present proceedings. The finding on the question of Opposite Party No. 1 being the sole landlord is also a finding of fact and is based upon the evidence on record and that finding too encashment be interfered within the present proceedings. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to an application under Section 21 of the Act and, therefore, the authorities below rightly negatived the petitioners' plea. Altogether the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed for six months' time to vacate the accommodation in question. He stated that each of the two petitioners shall file an undertaking in this Court within two weeks from today averring therein that they will vacate the accommodation in question and handover vacant possession Opposite Party No. 1 immediately on the expiry of the period of six months and further that within one month from today they will pay the entire arrears of rent and also rent for the six months allowed to him to vacate the accommodation. 7. In view of the above the petition is dismissed but the petitioner are allowed six months' time to vacate the accommodation on their filing undertaking mentioned herein above within the stipulated time and also on the condition of their paying the rent mentioned herein above. In case the petitioners fail to furnish the undertaking within the stipulated period or to make payment of the rent to Opposite Party No. 1 within the specified time, the time allowed herein shall not be available to the petitioners and it will be open to Opposite Party No. 1 to executive the order of eviction without waiting for the period of six months. A copy of the undertaking filed in this Court shall be served upon Sri B.L. Gupta learned Counsel for Opposite shall pay the cost of this petition to Opposite Party No. 1.