JUDGMENT : - Sudhir Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15-5-1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application filed by landlord-Respondent No. 3 under Section21 (l) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the order dated 28- 4-1995 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming said order in the appeal. 2. THE facts of the case in brief are that landlord-Respondent No. 3 owns house in dispute which is double-storeyed building in Upper Bazar, Pauri. He is residing on the first floor which consists of three rooms. THE petitioner is tenant on the ground floor. Respondent No. 3 filed application for release of portion of ground floor. He is an advocate and at the time of filing application he was working as District Government Counsel (Civil). His family consists of 9 members. He requires the accommodation for his chamber. THE petitioner is running a watch business in the premises in the name of 'garhwal Watch Company'. He has constructed a building in Lower Bazar, Pauri and he was having shops on the ground floor of this premises. The petitioner contested the application and filed objection on the ground that he did not require the premises at all. He has sufficient accommodation in his possession. 3. THE Prescribed Authority, on consideration of evidence on record, allowed the release application vide order dated 15-5-1987. THE petitioner filed appeal and the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 25-4-1995. 4. I have heard Shri Rajesh Tandon learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding regarding bona fide need of the landlord-respondent. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded finding that family of land lord consists of 9 members and his two sons are married. The landlord is an advocate and his two sons have also become advocates as stated in the counter-affidavit. Thus, the finding as regards the bona fide need, does not suffer from any illegality. 5. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the petitioner would suffer greater hardship in case he is evicted from the disputed shop. It is con tended that he is carrying on business in the disputed shop in the name of 'garhwal Watch Company'. THE size of the shop is 12 ft. x 12ft. and rear portion of it is8ft. x9ft. It is con tended that he is carrying on business in the disputed shop in the name of 'garhwal Watch Company'. THE size of the shop is 12 ft. x 12ft. and rear portion of it is8ft. x9ft. It has been suggested that the petitioner is prepared to vacate front portion and he may be permitted to retain rear portion of 8 ft. x 9 ft. THE learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the accommodation of 12 ft. x 12 ft. and rear portion of 8 ft. x 9 ft. will itself be not sufficient for landlord and his two sons who have also come in legal profession. 6. CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that it will be justifiable to release only a portion of disputed shop as suggested by the petitioner. It may further be noted that the appellate authority has found that the petitioner has shop in lower bazar in same city after purchasing it in the name of his wife. The contention of the petitioner is that he has strained relation with his first wife. In the proceeding under Section 145, Cr.PC. the petitioner filed written statement alleging that he was owner but it was purchased in the name of his first wife. Moreover, the release application was filed in the year 1983 and the petitioner could have found other alternative accommodation. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. In the end, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the disputed accommodation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted 8 months time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided he submits written undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority concerned within three weeks from today that he would vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and handover its peaceful possession to landlord-respondent. Petition dismissed.