JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The holding in dispute is premises No. 74/103, Dhankutti, Kanpur. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are the landlords. The petitioner was originally the tenant. He died and now his heirs have been substituted. The premises in dispute consists of two rooms and an angan on the ground floor of the premises No. 34/103, Dhankutti, Kanpur. Admittedly, the said premises is being used for godown purposes. 3. The respondent-landlord filed an application for release under Section 21 of the Act on the ground that Dinesh Chandra required the accommodation for carrying on the business of general merchandise and drugs business in the premises in dispute. It was stated the Dinesh Chandra was a young man of about 24 years of age, when the application for release was filed, he was unemployed. He had passed B. Com. examination and, consequently, he wanted to start the business. 4. This application for release was contested by the then tenant Ram Gulam Gupta on the ground that Dinesh Chandra had no experience of business. He could do so absorbing himself in the business of utensils of his father and he would suffer irreparable injury if he was made to vacate the disputed godown. 5. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence on the record, recorded a categorical finding that need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine. It was further found by the Prescribed Authority that greater hardship would be caused to the landlord in case the release application was rejected. This order was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 23rd October, 1982. Against the dated 23rd October, 1982, an appeal was filed. This appeal came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal on 14th February, 1984. The Appellate Authority has also agreed with the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused to the landlord in case the application for release is rejected. The present petition had been filed challenging the orders dated 23rd October, 1982, and 14th February, 1984. 6. The Appellate Authority has also agreed with the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused to the landlord in case the application for release is rejected. The present petition had been filed challenging the orders dated 23rd October, 1982, and 14th February, 1984. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the Appellate Authority had erred, in law, in not considering the need of the tenant at all and, consequently, the finding in regard to comparative hardship is vitiated in law. 8. After hearing the parties, I find that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without substance. The Appellate Authority has categorically considered the case set up by the tenant, namely, that the tenant does not actually carry on his business in the premises in dispute. Therefore, he can take any other premises for that purpose. On the other hand, if the property is not released in favour of the landlord the landlord will not be able to start a business to profitably engage himself after having completed his studies. 9. Both the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have found that the need of the landlord was genuine and that greater hardship will be caused to them if the release application is rejected. I do not find any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by both the authorities. The accommodation in dispute is only a godown which is being used by the petitioner-tenant. He is not carrying on any business in the accommodation in dispute and, as such, I do not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to vacate the premises. He also states that the petitioners are prepared to give an under-taking to the effect that immediately after the expiry of the time granted by this Court, he will vacate the accommodation and handover vacant possession of the property to the landlord-respondent. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to vacate the premises. He also states that the petitioners are prepared to give an under-taking to the effect that immediately after the expiry of the time granted by this Court, he will vacate the accommodation and handover vacant possession of the property to the landlord-respondent. In the circumstances, I grant four months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises in case he gives an undertaking within three weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that he will vacate the premises in dispute with in four months from today and shall hand over vacant possession to the landlord-respondent. The petitioner shall also pay four months' rent in advance to the landlord-respondent within a period of three weeks from today. Within three weeks, the landlord-respondent shall also deposit the compensation awarded by the Prescribed Authority by sits order dated 23rd October, 1982, if he has not already deposited the same. In case no undertaking is given, the release order shall be enforced forthwith.