B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE dispute in this case is regarding a shop situated in Biriaganj Bazar, town Tilhar, district shahjahanpur. The respondent No. 2 moved an application for release of the said shop under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act, No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner. The said application was allowed by the prescribed authority, respondent No. 3 on 13. 8. 1998 by judgment. Annexure-3 to the petition. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred appeal No. 163 of 1998 which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 17. 4. 2001 by judgment, Annexure-7 to the petition. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request to quash both these orders and to reject the application for release. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri K. G. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. ( 3 ) IT is contended that the petitioner is very old tenant of the shop ; that the respondent No. 1 totally Ignored the evidence filed by the petitioner ; that the petitioner filed the affidavits of anwar Ali, Shushil Kumar, Ram Gulam, Niyaz Ahmad, Sabbir. Shakoor Ali, Sanwar Hussain, sharafat, "baboo Ram, Chuttan and Mohd. Salim that is of eleven persons, which were not considered. ( 4 ) IT is further contended that the approach of the prescribed authority is incorrect. He has not considered the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship separately. On the other hand, he has decided both the questions together. It is also contended that the landlord has got another shop in the name of his brother-in-law and his sons are doing business in the said shop. ( 5 ) I have considered the arguments. It is no doubt correct that the prescribed authority should have considered the bona fide need first and In case he was of the view that the need alleged is bona fide, only then the question of comparative hardship could have been considered. However, i find that there is a detailed discussion of the prescribed authority on the point that the need is bona fide and the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. The point was also argued in the appeal. However, i find that there is a detailed discussion of the prescribed authority on the point that the need is bona fide and the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. The point was also argued in the appeal. The appellate court can decide the questions of facts and, therefore, the appellate court has made detailed scrutiny of the evidence and the affidavits and arrived at the conclusion that the landlord has bona fide need and comparative hardship is also in his favour. The judgment of the appellate court cannot be quashed for the reason that certain affidavits filed by the petitioner were not considered. It is not necessary to mention all the evidence in the judgment. It is more so because the judgment of the court below was affirmed by the appellate court. The Judgment of the appellate court. which is very detailed and thoroughly considered cannot be quashed for the reason that certain affidavits have not been considered. ( 6 ) THERE are two concurrent findings of both the courts below regarding the bona fide need and comparative hardship. These concurrent findings of fact cannot be quashed in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court as has been held in various cases of this court and the Apex Court, namely, Kamla Sarin v. Shyam Lal and others, 1984 (2) All RC 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. 1st Additional District Judge and others, 1967 UPRCC 376 : Jagan Prasad v. District Judge and another, 1976 UPRCC 342 ; Laxmi Narain v. IInd Additional District Judge and another, 1977 UPRCC 230 ; Smt. Nirmala Tandon v. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur nagar. 1996 (2) ARC 409 and In the case of Kamleshwar Prasad v. Praduman Ji Agarwal, 1997 (1) ARC. ( 7 ) THE petition is therefore, without merit and is hereby dismissed. ( 8 ) AFTER the petition had been dismissed, Sri K. G. Srivastava urged that the petitioner is to be displaced from a commercial shop and would require sometime to shift to another accommodation. ( 7 ) THE petition is therefore, without merit and is hereby dismissed. ( 8 ) AFTER the petition had been dismissed, Sri K. G. Srivastava urged that the petitioner is to be displaced from a commercial shop and would require sometime to shift to another accommodation. It was prayed that six months time may be allowed to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation. ( 9 ) WITH a view to balance the rights of the parties and to mitigate the hardship which occasions due to the shifting by an order of release, I feel that it would be Just and proper to allow reasonable time to vacate the premises to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed six months time to vacate the premises and the order of release shall be kept in abeyance and shall not be executed for six months provided the petitioner fulfils the following two conditions : (i) he deposits fn advance the amount of rent due and further rent for six months before the prescribed authority within one month from today which shall be paid to respondent No. 2. (ii) he files an undertaking on affidavit within one month from today before the prescribed authority that he shall hand over vacant possession in a peaceful manner to the landlord respondent on the expiry of six months from today. In case of the failure of the petitioner to abide by any one of the above two conditions within the time specified, the release order may be executed. .