JUDGMENT Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. Agarwal for the petitioner, and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents landlord. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders passed by Prescribed Authority as well as by Appellate Authority allowing release application filed by respondents-landlord and appeal filed by tenant-petitioner has been rejected. 3. Respondents filed a release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 with an allegation that they are having 18 members of the family and house under the tenancy of petitioner is adjacent to the house in dispute, therefore, if the said house is released in favour of respondents-landlord, their need will be satisfied. Prescribed Authority after recording a finding regarding bonafide need and comparative hardship has held that in case, house in question is released in favour of respondents-landlord, petitioner will suffer less hardship than respondents-Iandlords. 4. Petitioner aggrieved by aforesaid order, filed an appeal. Appeal too has been dismissed. 5. Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel for petitioner submits that during pendency of present application before Prescribed Authority, landlords have purchased House No. 95/35A/11 (old) situated at Hata Peer Bux, Penchbag Kanpur Nagar. This fact was brought to notice of Appellate Authority but Appellate Authority has not considered the same and dismissed appeal filed by petitioner. Further submission has been made that in case respondents-landlords can adjust their family in the said accommodation, which they have purchased then petitioner who is residing in the said accommodation from about 25 years, having no accommodation and will suffer more irreparable loss. Further submission has been made that ingredients regarding comparative hardship has not been complied by Appellate Authority. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that said property as alleged by petitioner has been acquired by State and that is in possession of Kanpur Development Authority. Further finding has been recorded that if release application is rejected, respondentslandlords will suffer more hardship than petitioner due to fact that the said accommodation is adjacent to the house where respondents-landlord are residing. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. 8.
Further finding has been recorded that if release application is rejected, respondentslandlords will suffer more hardship than petitioner due to fact that the said accommodation is adjacent to the house where respondents-landlord are residing. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. 8. Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority have recorded a finding of fact after comparing hardship of both the parties and held that as respondents-landlord are having 18 members in their family and if house in dispute is vacated in favour of respondents, they can adjust their family. After recording this finding, release application was allowed. It is well settled now that if the Courts below have recorded a finding regarding bonafide need and hardship on the basis of relevant evidence, the said finding is to be treated as finding of fact and there cannot be any interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 10. At the last Sri Jain submitted before the Court that some reasonable time may be granted to petitioner to vacate the premises and to search an alternative accommodation. Petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the said premises provided he furnishes an undertaking with an affidavit before the trial Court to handover the possession to respondents-landlords peacefully without any interruption. It is also provided that rent payable by petitioner will be paid during this period month to month as and when due. 11. No order as to costs. ————