JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition by the tenants is directed against concurrent judgments by which both the courts below have allowed the respondent landlady's application for release under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The respondent landlord filed an application for release under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner tenant inter alia with the allegation that the husband of the landlady alongwith his brother was a tenant of a shop where they were carrying their business of goldsmith since long and which was the only source of income for the family but his landlord instituted a release application no. 17 of 1995 against them which was contested and allowed and subsequently the High Court in Writ Petition No.16825 of 2003 upheld the release order on 17.4.2003 and granted a year's time to vacate it. It was further alleged that no other vacant shop was available to settle him and their son; the disputed shop which was in the tenancy of the petitioner be released as they are not utilising it. The application was contested on the ground that the landlord has other shops available etc. Both the courts below allowed the release application. 4. It is firstly urged that in the earlier proceedings against the husband of the landlord, the courts below have recorded and found that the landlord has several shops available where she could shift her business. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the judgments dated 20.12.1997 and 27.11.2004, but has failed to show that any vacant shop in reasonable condition was available. The courts below in their exhaustive judgments have considered this aspect in detail and have returned a finding of fact that no other shop was available either to her husband or son where they could rehabilitate them. Thus, the argument cannot be accepted. 6. It is then urged that the petitioner had filed affidavits bringing on record subsequent events to show that during pendency, another shop was vacated and which was let out and the appellate court has not considered this aspect or recorded a finding. 7. The contention does not appear to be correct. The landlord had duly explained the alleged availability of the shop occupied by Madan Varshney and Sanjeev Kumar. 7. The contention does not appear to be correct. The landlord had duly explained the alleged availability of the shop occupied by Madan Varshney and Sanjeev Kumar. The court has believed it and has held in favour of the landlord. 8. No other point has been urged. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 10. After the matter had been dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions of his client has given an oral and a written undertaking to this Court that if any reasonable time is granted, he would vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent landlord. Accordingly, the petitioner shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent landlord on or before 11.10.2010 and shall also not create any third party rights. He will also pay rent uptill that date within a period of three weeks from today failing which the interim protection shall be withdrawn and the petitioner would be liable eviction forthwith.