Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.8.1998 whereby the Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by the contesting respondent landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the act and the order dated 19.8.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. (2) It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the shop in dispute as he wanted to settle his son who was disabled, in business. It was stated that he was got no other shop to settle him in business, therefore, his need for the shop in dispute was genuine and bona fide. Plea of comparatively more hardship was also taken. The release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was objected to and op posed by the petitioner denying the facts stated in the said application and asserting that the need of respondent No. 3 was neither genuine nor bona fide. It was also denied that he will suffer any hardship if the application for release is rejected. On the other hand, it was asserted that the petitioner shall suffer greater hardship if he is ejected from the shop in dispute as he had no other suitable accommodation to carry on business. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority after going through the entire evidence on the record, recorded findings on the question of bona fide and genuineness of need in favour of respondent No. 3. The question of comparative hardships was also recorded in his favour. Having recorded the said findings, the application was allowed by judgment and order 28.8.1998. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 3 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 19.8.2000. Hence, the present petition. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 3 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 19.8.2000. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the judgment and order passed by the authorities below were illegal and the findings recorded by the said authorities are erroneous and per verse. The said judgments and orders are therefore, liable to be set aside. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the validity of the judgments and orders passed by the authorities below. It was urged that the authorities below recorded the concurrent findings of fact on the relevant questions involved in the case which are based on the relevant evidence on the record the same cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. (3) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record –– 5. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have recorded concurrent findings on the question of bona fide and genuineness of need of the respondent No. 3 in his favour. It is well settled that on the ground of need of a member application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, can be filed. In the present case, the shop was required for selling his son by the respondent No. 3 who was disabled. The authorities below, on the basis of evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the need of the Respondent No. 3 was bona fide and genuine. The said findings are based on relevant evidence on the record. Even on the question of hardship, the findings have been recorded by the authorities below in favour of respondent No. 3 which are also based on the relevant evidence on the record. The petition is, thus, concluded by concurrent findings of fact. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded the authorities below. 6. Lastly, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute. Mr. The petition is, thus, concluded by concurrent findings of fact. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded the authorities below. 6. Lastly, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute. Mr. B.D. Madhyan, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has got no objection if six month's time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in writing before the Prescribed Authority to vacate the shop in dispute, and hand over the vacant possession on expiry of the aforesaid time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated and undertook that against the present order, no appeal shall be filed by the petitioner. 7. In view of aforesaid facts, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall not be ejected from the shop in dispute for a period of six months from today subject to the condition he furnishes an undertaking in writing that he will vacate the shop in dispute and shall hand over vacant pos session to the respondent No. 3 on expiry of the aforesaid time or before and shall also pay the rent for the shop in dispute to the Respondent No. 3 at the rate he has been paying the rent for the period he remains in occupation of the said shop. 8. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.