JUDGMENT : - Sudhir Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25-9-1997 releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlady/respondent No. 3 and the order of the appellate authority dated 21-1-1999 affirming the said order in appeal. 2. THE landlady-Respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of LI. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) on the allegation that she has purchased the shop in question for starting business by her husband who was working as a Munim in a Firm Gyani Ram Suresh Chandra but on account of an accident his leg was fractured. He wanted to do his business of Dunlop and Foam matresses. THE tenant-petitioner has got a plot where he can shift the molasses pits and can shift the business on that place. The petitioner contested the application that the need of he landlady was not bona fide and in case the application is allowed, the tenant would suffer a greater hardship. It was also contended that the notice as required under the first proviso to Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act was not given. 3. THE Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the notice was duly served as required under the first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. THE need of the landlady to establish her husband in business of Dun-lop and Foam Matresses is bona fide. THE tenant can shift his business to some other place. THE petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority on 21 -1 -1999. 4. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings recorded by both the authorities. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the notice sent by Respondent No. 3 as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was defective as it gave one month time to vacate the premises. The notice also slates that six months notice was given to vacate the accommodation. The Prescribed Authority rightly held that sufficient notice was given to the petitioner before filing the application under Section 21 (1 ) (a) of the Act. The petitioner has further assailed the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the notice was served upon the petitioner. The notice also slates that six months notice was given to vacate the accommodation. The Prescribed Authority rightly held that sufficient notice was given to the petitioner before filing the application under Section 21 (1 ) (a) of the Act. The petitioner has further assailed the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the notice was served upon the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had submitted expert report which indicated that the petitioner had not received the notice alleged to have been sent by Respondent No. 3. The Prescribed Authority has considered both the reports and ground that Respondent No. 3 had sent a notice which was duly received by the petitioner. This finding does not suffer from any manifest illegality. The appellate authority has affirmed his findings. 5. IT is next contended that the findings recorded by the authorities below that the need of the husband of Respondent No. 3 to establish himself in the business of Dunlop and Foam matresses is incorrect. This finding is based on the appreciation of evidence. The husband of Respondent No. 3 was working as Munim. He has left that service. IT is not the case of the petitioner that he is doing some other job. Both the authorities have considered various circumstances which establish that the husband of Respondent No. 3 shall carry on the business as alleged by Respondent No. 3. 6. THE last submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner shall suffer greater hardship in case the application is allowed. THE authorities below have suggested that the petitioner can shift his business to another place where he has his molasses pits. It is contended that there is no other facilities like bank, post-office etc. and it will be difficult to carry on the business in absence of these facilities. It is for the petitioner to find out some suitable accommodation for carrying on his business. THE Court has to only compare the need in regard to hardship. On the finding that the husband of Respondent No. 3 requires the shop in question for livelihood, it is Respondent No. 3 who shall suffer greater hardship in case the application filed by Respondent No. 3 is rejected. I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. On the finding that the husband of Respondent No. 3 requires the shop in question for livelihood, it is Respondent No. 3 who shall suffer greater hardship in case the application filed by Respondent No. 3 is rejected. I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. IN the end learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that some lime may be granted to vacate the disputed accommodation. Considering the acts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted ten months' time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided he gives undertaking on affidavit within three weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority concerned that he would vacate the disputed accommodation within the lime granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to the Respondent No. 3. Petition dismissed.