JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. 1. The petitioners are tenants of premises no. 1731 situate in Moballa Chappati in the city of Mainpuri. The writ petition has been filed through the Secretary and Manager of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. 2. The landlady opposite party no. 3 filed an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accommodation was purchased by her on 10-1-1985 for her own use It was stated by the landlady that she was living in a rented house and needed this accommodation for her residence. Her need was bonafide and genuine. The tenants have a big house in Sadar Bazar in the same city. That building was being used for residential purposes as well as for storing the goods. The accommodation in dispute was being used by the employees of the petitioners for their residence. They can live comfortably in the house belonging to the tenants in Sadar Bazar itself. 3. The tenants contested the said application stating that the landlady has no cause of action. The application was not maintainable. She did not need the house for her own use. She had been living since long in the rented house. A major portion of the disputed house was in possession of the landlady. She had no need for any additional accommodation. The accommodation in dispute was provided by the petitioners to weavers and spinners. The need of the landlady was neither genuine nor bonafide. Greater hardship would be caused to the tenants in case the accommodation was released. 4. The Prescribed authority allowed the application of the landlady. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. Both the authorities while recording a finding that the need of the landlady was bonafide have held that the landlady was living in a rented house. She purchased the disputed house for her own residence. The accommodation in dispute Was being used for the residence of the employees of the petitioners and in connection with the business of the tenants. 5. On the question of comparative hardship it was held that Shri Gandhi Ashram was carrying on its big business in Mainpuri in another three- storied building which contains four residential flats. The tenant can accommodate his employees in that building. 5. On the question of comparative hardship it was held that Shri Gandhi Ashram was carrying on its big business in Mainpuri in another three- storied building which contains four residential flats. The tenant can accommodate his employees in that building. ON comparing the hardship of the two, it was held that in case if the building was not released then a greater hardship will be caused to the landlady. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the record I am satisfied that the findings recorded by the two authorities do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record and are pure questions of facts. I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine without any order as to costs. However, the petitioners are granted two months's time to vacate the premises subject to an undertaking being given before the Prescribed Authority that the said premises will be vacated by the petitioners by 31-3-1990 and they will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the landlady, provided further that the petitioners deposit the entire amount of rent due upto 31-3-1990 by 15-2-1990. In case of default this part of the order shall be deemed to be deleted. Petition dismissed.