A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a tenants petition. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri M. P. Sarraf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Upadhaya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. Other respondents are not relevant being the Court which decided1 the release proceedings 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 ). ( 3 ) THE dispute relates to a residential accommodation in possession of the tenant which came to the ownership of the landlord through gift deed (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). Release application (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) was filed on the ground that landlord required the accommodation (portion of House No. 24/10, P. O. Varanasi, consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bathroom) and subject-matter of release application registered as P. A. Case No. 17 of 1998, Sheela Das Gupta v. Amlendu Das Gupta. Tenant filed written statement. ( 4 ) PARTIES exchanged affidavits and thereafter prescribed authority rejected the release application vide judgment and order dated 29th July, 2000 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). ( 5 ) APPEAL under Section 22 of the Act filed by the landlord has been allowed by the appellate authority, the District Judge, Varanasi respondent No. 2 on the finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide and he was to suffer more hardship as compared to the tenant in case of rejection of the release application. ( 6 ) I have perused the impugned judgment of appellate authority. Considering the number of the members of the landlady vis-a-vis accommodation in her possession (ignoring accommodation in question), there can be no doubt that the need of the landlady is bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding on the point of comparative hardship. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, raised only one plea and argued that first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was attracted even in the case of gift. ( 8 ) THE word "purchased" used in the said proviso is clear, unambiguous and there is no scope for interpretation. ( 9 ) CERTAIN observations have been made on this point in the case of Anwar Hasan Khan v. District Judge, Shahjahanpur and Ors. ( 8 ) THE word "purchased" used in the said proviso is clear, unambiguous and there is no scope for interpretation. ( 9 ) CERTAIN observations have been made on this point in the case of Anwar Hasan Khan v. District Judge, Shahjahanpur and Ors. 2000 (1) AWC 650 : 2000 (1) ARC 43, and held that the use of the word purchase is significant and shows transfer by other mode has been intentionally excluded. ( 10 ) THE above view taken by me is supported by the decision of another learned single Judge directly on the point in case of Shyam Sunder v. IIIrd Additional District Judge. Pilibhit and ors. , 1078 ARC 204 (Paras 2 and 3 ). ( 11 ) THE aforesaid plea on behalf of the petitioner, thus, falls. ( 12 ) NO other ground in the writ petition warrant interference under Article 226, Constitution of india as the same involve appreciation of evidence and it is not permissible for the Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction. ( 13 ) PETITION lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in the end submitted that on the instruction of his client he prays for time of one year for vacating and delivering possession to the landlady peacefully. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same subject, however, to the condition that the petitioner, as per his assurance given to this Court, flies an undertaking in writing in the form of affidavit before the concerned prescribed authority to ensure that landlord is not harassed and Court imposes other usual conditions. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner before 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 10th december. 2001, an application along with 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 for one-year i. e. upto 8th November, 2002. Tenant-petitioner, her representative/assignee, etc. claiming through her or otherwise, if any. shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 8th November. Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for one-year i. e. upto 8th November, 2002. Tenant-petitioner, her representative/assignee, etc. claiming through her or otherwise, if any. shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 8th November. 2002 to the landlord or landlords 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. 3. Petitioner shall on or before 10th December, 2001. deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. up to date i. e. , entire arrears of the past, if any, as well as the rent for the period ending on the 8th November, 2002. 4. Petitioner and everyone claiming under her undertake not to change or damage or transfer/alienate/assign in any manner, the accommodation in question. 5. In case tenant-petitioner falls 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. 6. 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. .