JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. PETITIONER, tenant of residential accommodation of which respondent No. 3 happens to be landlord, approached this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India. Seeking to challenge concurrent judgment and order dated 1-8-1998/annexure-6 to the petition, passed by Prescribed Authority Special C.J.M., Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 6 of 1996 and judgment and order dated 9- 8-2001/annexure 8 to the petition, passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 8) Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 132 of 1998. The landlord had sought release of the accommodation in question (Premises No. 577 Faithfulganj, Cantonment, Kanpur) on the ground that he had large family consisting of 18 members and he alongwith them is living in a small tenanted accommodation. 3. PETITIONER contested claim of the landlord. He was allowed to file counter-affidavit against the release application filed by the landlord under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'). The Prescribed Authority had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises in dispute. 4. PRESCRIBED Authority after considering evidence on record in the light of the submissions made by the respective parties. Allowed release application filed under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act, by means of the judgment and order dated 1-8-1998/ annexure-6 to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, Rent Appeal No. 132 of 1998 (referred to above) was filed. Memorandum of, appeal has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the petition. 5. THE aforesaid rent appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act vide, impugned judgment and order dated 9-8-2001/annexure-8 to the petition. 6. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner made two submissions before this Court. First submission is with respect to the Commissioner's report and it is argued that appellate authority did not take into account said Commissioner's report, said contention appears to have been made by inadvertence of the fact that appellate Court has referred to the Commissioner's report in its judgment (see at the bottom page 90 of the writ paper book). It may be stated that Commissioner's report has been dealt with in detail by the Prescribed Authority (page 69-71 of the writ paper book). It may be stated that Commissioner's report has been dealt with in detail by the Prescribed Authority (page 69-71 of the writ paper book). The other submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that landlord has certain other accommodation and as such release application should not have been allowed. 7. I find no specific ground relating to the said submission. There is no categorical pleading giving requisite details to enable the respondent to reply the contention of the petitioner in this regard. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 1-8-1998 passed by Prescribed Authority, as well as the appellate authority, show that both the authorities had considered relevant evidence and the material on record in the light of the submissions made by the parties. No grievance has been made in the petition that any point pressed before the Court below, has not been considered. No ground in this regard in the memorandum of appeal has been mentioned or such a point was pressed before the Appellate Court. This Court will not interfere with the impugned judgment and orders of the Court below in exercise of its powers under Article 226, Constitution of India as plea was not perused before them. Even otherwise, considering the number of family members and other circumstances of the case, I find no merit to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority. 8. PETITION lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, on instructions of the petitioner, submitted that he is prepared to evict the accommodation in question peacefully, if he is allowed reasonable time and the petitioner shall give an undertaking to that effect in writing ensuring the Court that he shall abide by his undertaking and assurance given to the Court. 9. LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-landlord stated that the landlord is prepared to grant none months' time to vacate the accommodation considering the entirety of the circumstances as well as paucity of the accommodation in the city of Kanpur Nagar. 9. LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-landlord stated that the landlord is prepared to grant none months' time to vacate the accommodation considering the entirety of the circumstances as well as paucity of the accommodation in the city of Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner is, however, granted nine months, time to evict the accommodation in question subject to following conditions : - LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority on the terms and conditions imposed by this Court : (1) The tenant-petitioner shall file before the concerned Prescribed Authority, on or before 1st December, 2001 an application alongwith his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter. (2) Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy of nine months i.e., upto 15th September, 2002. Tenant petitioner, his representative assignee, etc. , claiming through his or otherwise, if any, shall vacate the accommodation in question without objection and shall peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 15th September, 2002 to the landlord or landlord's nominee/representative (if any, appointed and intimated by the landlord) be 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), the time and date on which landlord is to take possession from the tenant. (3) Petitioner shall on or before 1st December, 2001 deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. upto date i.e., entire arrears of the past, if any, as well as the rent for the period ending on 15th September, 2002. (4) Petitioner and everyone claiming under his undertaking not to 'change' or 'damage' or transfer alienate/assign in any manner, the accommodation in question. (5) 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. If 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. Petition dismissed.