Devendra Pratap Singh, J.: - Heard teamed Counsel for the peti­tioner and the learned Counsel EOT the respondent-caveator. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated 22.3.2010 and 15.6.2010 by which both the Courts below have allowed the re­lease application. 3. It appears that Shiv Prakash, the father of the respondent-landlord, filed a release application which was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 2004 in­ter alia with the allegation that Ghawani Prasad, father of the petitioner, was the original tenant of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and after his death, the petitioner being his legal heir inherited the tenancy of the shop in dispute- It was further alleged that the family of the landlord was very large and nearly all the members are doing their own business but the applicant who was helping his brother in his business, has been asked to start his own business. Due to family partition, except the disputed shop, he had no other place. However, during the pendency of the release application, Shiv Prakash Gupta died survived by his wife, four daughters and a minor son who set up a case that she wanted to start a business of selling bangles from the dis­puted shop as she has no other source of income and she has to take care of the family. 4. The tenant contested the application, inter alia with the allegation that the landlords had three shops in Sadar Bazar and in fact, they had sold three shops in 2004 itself which showed that they had no genuine need. It was further asserted that the landlord has a huge house with appurtenant land where she can open a shop. 5. After the parties had led their evidence, both the impugned orders were passed allowing the release application. 6. It is firstly urged that the respondent-landlord had sold out three shops recently and the Courts below had not considered the effect thereof. 7. The contention does not appear to be correct. The Courts below have con­sidered this aspect in detail and have recorded a finding of fact that the shops have been sold to the sitting tenant to raise money for the marriage of the daughters. Even otherwise, shops were tenanted and, therefore, were not available. 7. The contention does not appear to be correct. The Courts below have con­sidered this aspect in detail and have recorded a finding of fact that the shops have been sold to the sitting tenant to raise money for the marriage of the daughters. Even otherwise, shops were tenanted and, therefore, were not available. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence on record and cannot be interfered at this stage. 8. It is then urged that Prem Chandra had vacated another shop which was lying in vacant state and that can be occupied by the landlord. 9. The Courts below after considering the evidence on record had believed that the said shop was not available and was in possession of one another brother Om Prakash who was utilizing it 10. No other point has been urged. 11. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected, 12. After the order was pronounced and before it could be transcribed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, upon instruction of his client, has given an undertaking that if a reasonable time is granted, he will handover peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord without creating any third party right. An affidavit to that effect has also been filed. 13. Considering the fact that the landlady is a widow whose husband had died during the pendency of the release application and is looking after four grown up daughters and a son, period of two months would suffice in the facts of this case. Accordingly, the petitioner-tenant is directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed shop to the respondent-landlady on or be­fore 1.10,2010 without creating any third party rights and would also pay the rent uptil that date to the landlady within a period of one month from today. In case of default of paying rent, the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith. Petition Rejected.