Judgment A.K. Yog, J. (1) This petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, arises out of release proceedings initiated by Smt. Rani Tandon (impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the petition), who had filed release application dated 28.8.1989 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) before the Prescribed Authority/respondent No. 2 under Section 21, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act). (2) Release application was filed, briefly stated, on the ground that she was owner/ landlord of the disputed non-residential premises No. 58/17, Nachghar, Neelwali Gali behind Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar wherein petitioner Sardar Surjeet Singh was tenant at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner comprises of one room measuring 209' x 18' (as mentioned in para 4 of the petition). It was contended that the husband of the landlord was a practicing Advocate, apart from that her son (Atul Tandon), daughter-in-law (Smt. Manjula Tandon) and grand- daughter (Km. Akansha Tandon) live with her. It was also stated that Atul Tandon had varied interest and had vast knowledge of different fields like Indology, Journalism, Writing and Publication, etc. It was also mentioned that he had experience of publication and of writing books, but due to paucity it was not possible to establish her son who intended to carry on business of press by installing an Offset Machine, etailed facts in this respect have been , given in the release application itself and need not be repeated. A detailed written statement was filed (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition). The Prescribed Authority, after par ties were given opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective cases and were heard, allowed the release application vide judgment and order dated 18.7.1995. (3) The Prescribed Authority, after careful scrutiny of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the need disclosed by the landlady was genuine and bona fide and in case rejection of the release application landlady was to suffer more and, consequently, factor of comparative hardship was in her favour. Prescribed Authority granted Rs. 600 as compensation in lieu of dispossession of the tenant and tenant was directed to deliver possession within two months (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition). (4) Feeling aggrieved tenant filed Rent Appeal No. 131 of 1995 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition). Prescribed Authority granted Rs. 600 as compensation in lieu of dispossession of the tenant and tenant was directed to deliver possession within two months (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition). (4) Feeling aggrieved tenant filed Rent Appeal No. 131 of 1995 (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition). The Appellate Authority, after hearing parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2000 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition). Not being satisfied, tenant-petitioner has filed this petition against the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 18.7.1995 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) and 11.5.2000 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition). On behalf of landlady (contesting Respondent No. 3). Caveat application was filed by Shri Rajesh Tandon, Advocate. Learned Counsels for the parties agree that this petition may be finally decided (without requiring for counter-affidavit) on the basis of the existing material on the record of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, decided finally at the admission stage. (5) I have heard Shri S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate instructed by Shri Pankaj Bhatia on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tandon on behalf of contesting Respondent No. 3 and perused the record. After hearing at length, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that this petition is concluded by concur rent findings. None of the grounds contained in Para 10 of the petition except Ground No. 5, is of a nature which may constitute a legal ground warranting interference under Article 226, Constitution of India. Considering the scope of the grounds (except Ground No. 5) a question was put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show as to whether any finding or observation of the Courts below was perverse or otherwise arbitrary or vitiated by unreasonable approach. The learned Counsels failed to point out any error much less manifest error apparent on the face of record. (6) The learned Counsel for the petitioner chose to press Ground No. 5 only by referring to the dimension of the shop and the space the size of Offset Printing Machine, which it will occupy as per dimension of the Machine claimed by the landlady. On that basis. It is submitted that certain space will still be left after putting the Machine and hence entire shop should not have been released. On that basis. It is submitted that certain space will still be left after putting the Machine and hence entire shop should not have been released. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on specific question being put as to whether such a plea was raised earlier con ceded that no plea (viz. releasing a part of the shop will meet the need of the landlady and remaining portion will be sufficient for the need of the tenant), was made before the Courts below. (7) In view of the fact that such a plea was never raised and the tenant himself did not deem it proper to contend earlier that printing work could be carried in a part of the premises in question, it cannot be al lowed at this belated stage. Moreover, considering the size of the Offset Printing Machine (measuring 711' x 55' Approximately 8' x 6') it cannot be said that the disputed premises measuring 20' x 20' (as mentioned in appeal pp 143 of the Writ Paper Book) could be released partially so as to allow both the landlady and the tenant to run their respective businesses in the accommodation in question. The mere fact that the son of landlady will place an Offset Printing Press indicates that volume of the printing activity will be significant. Apart from machine, persons working on it will also require space for movement. Not only this, fresh printing work will require material to be spread. Raw material will also be require I to be stored. Considering the nature of the job involved in printing, it cannot be said that room measuring 20' x 20' or 20' x 18' is more than required. (8) Moreover, there is nothing on record of this petition nor there is an averment in the petition itself as to how much portion, if allowed to be retained by the tenant, shall serve the purpose of the petitioner. In absence of requisite pleadings the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner, has no foundation and is liable to be rejected. After hearing of the petition was closed, learned Counsel for the petitioner asked for time to make his submission, after consulting their client during lunch hours. In absence of requisite pleadings the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner, has no foundation and is liable to be rejected. After hearing of the petition was closed, learned Counsel for the petitioner asked for time to make his submission, after consulting their client during lunch hours. After lunch hours, Shri Pankaj Bhatia made a statement that he has consulted his client, who has agreed and authorised him to give undertaking on be half of Sardar Surjeet Singh to the effect that petitioner shall vacate peacefully the accommodation in question provided he is allowed some reasonable time. (9) Learned Counsel for the petitioner voluntarily prayed that one year's time be allowed to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in question. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent, however, submitted that it shall cause immense hardship and injury to the landlord and the Petitioner may vacate the accommodation in less than six months' time. (10) Considering the relevant factors learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed to reduce the time and finally prayed for nine months' time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner hence assured and gave an undertaking on instructions from the petitioner that he shall vacate the accommodation or before 15.2.2001 and that petitioner undertakes to fulfill following conditions:- (i) The tenant petitioner shall file before the concerned Prescribed Authority, on or before 31.5.2000, an application along with an affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter. (ii) Petitioner shall on or before 31.7.2000 deposit entire amount due towards rent up to date i. e. entire arrears of the past, if any as well as the rent for the period ending on the 15.2.2001 (iii) Tenant-Petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for one year, i.e. up to 15.2.2001. Tenant-petitioner, his representative/ assignee, etc. claiming through it or otherwise, if any, shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 15.2.2001 to the landlord or landlord's nominee/representative (if any, appointed and intimated by the landlord) by giving prior advance notice and notifying to the landlord by Registered A.D. post (on his last known address or as may be disclosed in advance by the landlord in writing before the concerned Prescribed Authority) time and date on which landlord is to take possession from the tenant. (iv) Petitioner and everyone claiming under them undertake not to change or damage or transfer/alienate/assign in any manner, the accommodation in question. (v) In case tenant-petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions or directions/contained in this order, landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant-petitioner forthwith from the accommodation in question by seeking police force through concerned Prescribed Authority. (vi) In there is violation of the undertaking of anyone or more of the conditions contained in this order, the defaulting party shall pay Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as damages to the other party besides rendering himself/herself liable to be prosecuted for committing grossest contempt of the Court. Writ Petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed, however, subject to the above conditions and directions. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.