JUDGMENT : R.P. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Respondents 1 and 2 allowing the application of the landlord for the release of the disputed accommodation, house situate in Mohalla Kasdi Tola, Peer Gaib, Moradabad in proceedings u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that the Petitioners are the tenants of the disputed accommodation of which the Respondent No. 3 is the landlord. The landlord purchased the disputed accommodation on 6th October 1978 and moved the present application for the release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that he is living in a tenanted house paying a rent of Rs. 375/- per month in a two room accommodation and there are seven members in the family of the landlord including his wife, three sons and one daughter all grown up and adult and also a married daughter is normally residing with him. The two room accommodation in which the landlord is living as tenant is wholly insufficient for their residence and moreover, they have to pay a high rent of Rs. 375/- per month which the landlord cannot easily afford to pay and hence the need for the disputed accommodation is bonafide and genuine and that greater hardship would be caused if the accommodation is not released in his favour. 3. The application was contested by the Petitioner on the ground that the need of the landlord is neither bonafide nor genuine and that they are well to do persons, well placed and can well afford to pay rent in their tenanted house and further that the Petitioner himself is a class IV employee in the Railways and he would be put to greater hardship in case the accommodation is released in favour of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority on going through the evidence on record and applying his mind to the same came to a conclusion that the need of the Respondent No. 3 for the disputed accommodation is genuine and bonafide and that greater hardship would be caused in case the accommodation is not released in his favour. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved went up in appeal before Respondent No. 1 who also dismissed the appeal upholding the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved went up in appeal before Respondent No. 1 who also dismissed the appeal upholding the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the Prescribed Authority. It is these orders which are challenged in the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. Prakash Krishna learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V. P. Varshney for the landlord Respondent No. 3. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the landlord Respondent No. 3 had purchased the house on 6th October 1978 he could not file the application u/s 21(1)(a) unless the landlord has given a notice to the Petitioner not less than six months before he moved the application for the release of the accommodation u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in absence of such notice the application itself was not maintainable. The learned Counsel also contended that the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship is not based on perusal of evidence on record and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondent No. 3 contended that a clear finding has been recorded by the appellate Court and it has not been denied that notice was duly served on Om Prakash Petitioner No. 1 and hence there was due compliance of service of six months notice to the tenant. The learned Counsel for the landlord Respondent No. 3 further contended that the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship being concurrently recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Additional District Judge, it is not open to the Petitioner to challenge this finding in writ jurisdiction before this Court. 7. Now coming to the first submission raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was no due service of six months notice as contemplated by the 1st proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, no doubt it is provided that unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of purchase of the accommodation and the landlord (has given notice in that behalf to the tenant, not less than six months before that application, no application for release of the accommodation u/s 21(1)(a) shall be entertained. However it is not denied that a period of three years had elapsed when the present application for release of the accommodation was moved by the landlord Respondent No. 3. As regards the service of six months notice to the tenant, it appears that the case of the tenant was that there was no service of notice on Dashrath Petitioner No. 2 but as regards Om Prakash Petitioner No. 1 there is no specific denial and the appellate Court on perusal of the evidence on record has clearly recorded a finding that there is no denial about the service of notice on Om Prakash Petitioner No. 1. In view thereof there is sufficient compliance of the service of six months notice on the tenant before filing the application for release of the said accommodation. 8. As regards the finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship, on perusal of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court I am satisfied that they have recorded the finding after perusal and appraisal of the evidence on record. Since the findings on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship have been recorded after appraisal of the evidence on record it is not open to this Court sitting in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion which may be different from that reached by the District Judge or the Prescribed Authority, and if the High Court proceeds to do so it will clearly act in excess of its powers. In view of the clear finding on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded concurrently by the Prescribed Authority and the IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad, I see no merit in the submission of the Petitioners' Counsel on this point also. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 9. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the Petitioners who are very poor persons to vacate the disputed premises and handover peaceful possession of the same to the landlord-Respondent No. 3. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 9. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the Petitioners who are very poor persons to vacate the disputed premises and handover peaceful possession of the same to the landlord-Respondent No. 3. In case the Petitioners file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority Respondent No. 3 within a period of one month from today that they would vacate the disputed accommodation and handover peaceful possession of the same on or before 1st of June 1990, the Petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed accommodation till 1st of June 1990. In case, however the Petitioner do not file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority as indicated above, within one month from today, it will be open to the landlord-Respondent No. 3 to evict the Petitioners forthwith in accordance with law.