JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J. Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners who are tenants in shop No. 163-A, Mandi Khas Kausi Kalan, Tahsil Chheta, District Mathura. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed release petition under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was registered as P. A. Case No. 45 of 1989. It was allowed by an order dated 10-12-1992. Against this order the petitioners preferred Revision Application No. 1 of 1993 under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed on 11-4-2001. 2. SRIRAJESH Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the need of the landlord respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has not been properly appraised and as a matter of fact it diminished in course of time and, therefore, the release petition has been wrongly allowed. Sri V. K. Barman appearing on behalf of the landlord repels this submission and supports the findings of the two Courts below. Sri Barman further pointed out that the question of bona fide need as well as that of hardship is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed by this Court by invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection Sri Barman placed reliance on a number of decisions of this Court as well as Apex Court in the cases of Kamla Sarin v. Shyam Lal and others, 1984 (2) All. R. C. 344; Munni Lal and another v. Prescribed Authority and another, AIR 1978 SC 29 ; Natthu Lal v. Radhey, AIR 1974 SC 1696; Babhutmal Raichand v. Laxmibai, AIR 1975 SC 1296; Smt. Labhkumar Bhagwani Shaha v. Janardan Mahadeo Kalan, AIR 1983 SC 535 ; Ram Rakesh Pal and another v. I Additional District Judge and others, 1667 U. P. R. C. C. 376; Jagan Prasad v. District Judge and another, 1976 U.P.R.C.C. 342; Laxmi Narain v. IInd Additional District Judge and another, 1977 U.P.R.C.C. 230; Smt. Nirmala Tandon v. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 1996 (2) A. R. C. 409; Kamleshwar Prasad v. Paduman Ju Agarwal, 1997 (1) A. R. C. 627 to fortify his submission. In view of the above legal position and taking into consideration the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter by invoking my extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. After the dismissal of the writ petition, Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that since the petitioners have to make some alternative arrangement, some breathing time may be allowed to the petitioners to vacate the released shop and to shift to some alternative accommodation. Sri Barman has no objection if a reasonable time is allowed to the petitioners for the purpose. 3. AFTER taking into consideration the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and the attending circumstances, I feel that it would be just, equitable and proper if time upto 31-12-2001 is allowed to the petitioners to vacate the released shop/tenanted accommodation. Accordingly the order of release dated 10-12-1992 as affirmed in appeal by the order dated 11-4-2001 shall remain abeyance till 31-12-2001 provided: (i) the petitioners deposit in advance the amount of damages calculated twice the rate of rent by 15th of May, 2001 with the Prescribed Authority for the period Ist of April, 2001 to 31-12- 2001. (ii) and also files an affidavit by 15th May, 2001 incorporating an undertaking that he shall deliver vacant peaceful possession to the landlord respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on or before 31-12-2001. 4. IN the event of the failure of the petitioners to abide by any one of the aforesaid conditions, the concession to continue in possession upto 31-12-2001 shall stand withdrawn and the order of release as affirmed in appeal shall become executable all at once after 15-5-2001. Petition dismissed.