JUDGMENT R.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dated 8.12.1987 dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority ordering the release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord Trijugi Narain Srivastava, respondent No. 3, in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that the disputed House No. 46-A Jawahar Lal Nagar, Allahabad, was purchased on 19.5.1980 by the respondent No. 3 for his residence. The said house is in occupation of the petitioner who is its tenant. The case set by the respondent No. 3 the landlord was that the disputed house was purchased for the residence of his family but in absence of any other accommodation available they at the moment were compelled to live with his brother-in-law in House No. 174, Chak, Zero Road, Allahabad but since the accommodation there is short they are finding it difficult to stay in that accommodation and hence their need for the accommodation in dispute is bonafide and genuine. The application moved by the respondent No. 3 was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the need of the landlord was not bonafide and genuine and that she had been living in the house as a tenant since 1960 and she would be put to great hardship in case the accommodation is released in favour of the landlord. The prescribed Authority, after appraisal of the evidence on record held that the need of the landlord, respondent No. 3, is bonafide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused in case the accommodation is not released in his favour and on these findings, he, vide his order, dated 8.7.1985, allowed the application for release. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner went up in appeal before the IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, who also on appraisal of the evidence on record dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding on the question of bonafide need as well as on comparative hardship. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the need of the landlord for the accommodation in dispute is not bonafide and genuine. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the need of the landlord for the accommodation in dispute is not bonafide and genuine. However, on perusal of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge, I find that they have applied their mind to the evidence on record and after considering the same they have recorded a concurrent finding on the question of bonafide need of the landlord. The landlord has no other house in Allahabad than the disputed house for his residence. The landlord, his wife, his son and two daughters, who are receiving education here at Allahabad are compelled, under the circumstances, to live with the brother-in-law of the landlord and in absence of proper accommodation being available they are put to great hardship and hence the findings recorded by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine and further that the landlord would be put to greater hardship in case the accommodation is not released in his favour are findings recorded after appraisal of the evidence on record which cannot be successfully challenged. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that it is not open for this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and reach a finding contrary to those rendered by the subordinate Courts and when the High Court proceeds to do so, it plainly acts in excess of its powers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the landlord Trijugi Narain Srivastava, respondent No. 3, who is an employee in the Labour Department has now been transferred to Jhansi. However, nothing could be brought to my notice to show that the respondent No. 3 has been allotted any accommodation at Jhansi and that his family members are living in Jhansi with him. The disputed accommodation was required for the residence of the respondent No. 3 and his family members. His son is employed at Allahabad while his two daughters are receiving education in Allahabad hence the bonafide need of the respondent No. 3 for the residence of his family members at Allahabad still survives. In the result, there are no merits in this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed. 5. His son is employed at Allahabad while his two daughters are receiving education in Allahabad hence the bonafide need of the respondent No. 3 for the residence of his family members at Allahabad still survives. In the result, there are no merits in this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be allowed to be petitioner to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord, respondent No. 3. The learned counsel for landlord, respondent No. 3, has taken a very fair and proper stand in this case and is prepared to accommodate the petitioner for a period of six months provided the petitioner files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, that she shall vacate the accommodation in dispute by 31st October, 1988 and also pays or deposits the entire amount due as damages for use and occupation of the accommodation in dispute till 31st October, 1988, within a period of 1 month from today. Hence, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute till 31st October, 1988, provided she files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, within a period of one month from today, that she shall vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the accommodation in dispute to Trijugi Narain Srivastava, respondent No. 3, till 31st October, 1988, as also deposit or pays the entire amount as damage for use and occupation of the accommodation due till 31st October, 1988, within a period of one month from today. In case the undertaking is not filed and the amount of damage is not deposited, as stated above, it will be open to the respondents to evict the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law. 5. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Cost on parties.