JUDGMENT S.U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Pankaj Naqvi, learned Counsel for the landlady respondent who has appeared through caveat. 2. This is tenants' writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady 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. 35 of 1996. Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Bareilly allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 13.2.2003. Against said judgment and order, petitioners filed R.C. Appeal No.4 of 2003, which was dismissed on 17.5.2008 by A.D.J./Special Judge, E.C. Act, Bareilly, hence this writ petition. 3. Property in dispute is a residential house containing four rooms, rent of which is Rs. 80/- per month. Landlady alongwith her family is residing in the adjoin jpg house containing three rooms. Property in dispute is situating in town Faridpur District Bareily. In the release application, it was pleaded that family of the landlord consisted of herself, her husband, three sons aged about 30 years, 25 years and 22 years, and a married daughter, that one of the sons Mukesh was married and was having two daughters, that the other two sons Vinod and Vimal Babu were to marry soon, that landlady was residing in a house constructed only over an area of 30 square yards in the same mohalla/locality, that house in dispute was constructed over an area of 75 square yards. 4. Tenants filed written statement and pleaded that landlady had another house constructed over an area of 100 square yards and had another plot of 200 square yards. It was further pleaded that Mukesh eldest son of the landlady was residing in Town Bunda, District Shahjahanpur alongwith his family and was doing business there. 5. Other two sons of the landlady were married in April, 2004 and January, 2007 during pendency of appeal. 6. During pendency of appeal, in the year 2007 landlady constructed a house and one of her married sons Vimal Babu started residing in the said house. 7. 5. Other two sons of the landlady were married in April, 2004 and January, 2007 during pendency of appeal. 6. During pendency of appeal, in the year 2007 landlady constructed a house and one of her married sons Vimal Babu started residing in the said house. 7. House in dispute was purchased by the landlady in 1982.It was stated by the tenant that six months notice given by the landlord in 1995 was not served upon him, however as release application was filed after 14 years of purchase, hence it was not necessary to serve six months notice, under first proviso to section 21 of the Act vide Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohammed Shafi1 8. In respect of residence of Mukesh Kumar eldest son of the landlady in Town Bunda, Lower Appellate Court found that it was at a short distance from Faridpur, where property in dispute was situate and Mukesh was daily commuting from Faridpur to Bunda it was also found that ratio card of Mukesh was from Faridpur and identity card for the purposes of election had also been obtained by him from Faridpur and in the electoral list also his name was included from Faridpur. During pendency, of appeal, after marriage of her other two sons, the landlady, in the year, 2004 and 2007, constructed one room, kitchen, latrine and bathroom in the adjoining land owned by her, for adjusting one of her married sons, i.e., Vimal alongwith his wife. This fact in stead of disproving the need of the landlady fully proved her reed. For want of accommodation, she had to construct a small housie of one room to adjust one of her sons after his marriage. No other accommodation was found available to the landlord. 9. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the finding of bona fide need recorded by both the Courts below. 10. In respect of comparative hardship, both the Courts below held that tenant did not make any sincere efforts to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. Accordingly, question of comparative hardship was decided by both the Courts below against tenant. This view is perfectly in consonance with the Supreme Court authority in B.C. Bhutada v. C.R Mundada.1 11. Accordingly I do not find any error in the finding of comparative hardship recorded by both the Courts below. 12. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 13. Accordingly, question of comparative hardship was decided by both the Courts below against tenant. This view is perfectly in consonance with the Supreme Court authority in B.C. Bhutada v. C.R Mundada.1 11. Accordingly I do not find any error in the finding of comparative hardship recorded by both the Courts below. 12. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. 13. Tenants-petitioners are granted eight months time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today petitioners tenants file an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of eight months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlady-respondent. 2. For this period of eight months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs. 6.400/- (at the rate of Rs. 800/- 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 landlady-respondent. 14. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants-petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and tenant’s petitioners 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. 15. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 6,400/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of eight months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after eight 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.