JUDGMENT S.U. KHAN, J. Heard Sri R.K. Chaube, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, assisted M.W. Faridi, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent, who has appeared through caveat. 2. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 6 of 2006. Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Gorakhpur through judgment and order dated 4.10.2007 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order, tenant petitioner filed Misc. Rent Appeal No. 19 of 2007. District Judge, Gorakhpur dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 31.7.2008, hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute is a residential house. Landlord asserted that he was residing on the first floor, which was sufficient for his need at the time when he let out the disputed portion to tenant petitioner as at that time his children were of quite tender age. However, due to passage of time of about 2025 years, his children had grown, one son was married in 1993, in the year 1994 landlord retired, in the year 1997 second son of the landlord was also married and both the sons of the landlord were having their families including their children. It was further stated that at the time of filing of release application due to paucity of accommodation landlord with his wife was residing in the drawing/dining room along with his third unmarried son. 4. Both the Courts below found the need of the landlord to be bona fide. I do not find least error in the said findings. When children grow up, get married and have their children, the need of additional accommodation obviously increases. This principle is recognised by Rule 16 (1) (b) of the Rules framed under the Act also, which is quoted below: "16 (1) (b) Where a residential building was let out at the time when the sons of the landlord were minors and subsequently one of more of them has married, the additional requirement of accommodation for the landlord's sons shall be given due consideration." 5. At the time of filing of release application, landlord was about 70 years, his wife about 65 years and they were residing in one room on the first floor. At the time of filing of release application, landlord was about 70 years, his wife about 65 years and they were residing in one room on the first floor. Courts below held that only one room available to three persons was insufficient and that the old couple was also facing lot of difficulties in ascending the stairs. The allegation of the tenant that some accommodation on the first floor was let out to another tenant, who had later on vacated was thoroughly disbelieved. In any case accommodation in possession of the landlord was rightly found to be insufficient of the need for his already grown family. 6. Courts below also rightly held that the need for the third son was also quite bona fide, who was major and to be married soon. 7. In respect of comparative hardship, both the Courts below found that tenant did not make any efforts to search alternative accommodation hence question of hardship was decided against him. This view is perfectly in consonance with the view of Supreme Court authority B.C. Bhutada v. C.R. Mundada.,1. 8. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. Tenant-petitioner is granted ten months time to vacate provided that. 1. Within one month from today petitioner tenant filed an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of ten months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of ten months, which has been granted to the tenant petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 7,500/- (at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month) as rent damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within• one month before the prescribed authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. 3. Admitted unpaid rent till date is deposited before the prescribed authority within one month for immediate payment to the landlord respondent. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 7,500/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of ten months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1,500/per month since after ten months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application under section 23 of the Act. Writ Petition Dismissed.