JUDGMENT Devendra Pratap Singh,J. - Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the respondent caveator. 2. This petition by the tenants is directed against concurrent orders dated 7.7.2006 and 5.7.2010 by which both the courts below have allowed the release application of the respondent landlord. 3. It appears that the respondent landlord along with his wife filed a release application no. 21 of 2004 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that the premises in their occupation was very meagre and a family about 13 people they had to accommodate themselves in three rooms and therefore, it was required for their personal need. The tenant contested the said application on the ground that the landlord had other premises available and they were living comfortably in their house. Both the courts below after considering all the facts have recorded a categorical finding of fact that there was no genuine bona fide need and comparative hardship. 4. It is urged that since the application was filed within 3 years of the purchase by the landlord, the application was incompetent and further the landlord had purchased a large piece of vacant land, therefore, he could make arrangements for his accommodation. 5. Both these arguments were considered by the courts below and they have recorded categorical findings of fact that though the purchase was made in 2001, the release application was filed in 2004 after giving six months notice to the tenant. The courts have also gone on to hold that the application was entertained after expiry of three years. The courts have also found that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. The courts have found that the landlord has a family of about 13 persons and they have to manage in only three rooms and therefore, have rightly held the need to be genuine and bona fide. 6. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 7. After the order had been dictated, learned counsel for the Petitioner, upon instruction of his client, has stated that some reasonable time may be granted by which he will handover the peaceful vacant possession without creating any third party rights to the respondent landlord and also pay rent till that period. 8. Rejected. 7. After the order had been dictated, learned counsel for the Petitioner, upon instruction of his client, has stated that some reasonable time may be granted by which he will handover the peaceful vacant possession without creating any third party rights to the respondent landlord and also pay rent till that period. 8. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to handover peaceful vacant possession to the respondent landlord on or before 30.10.2010 without creating any third party rights. He will also deposit rent uptill that date within a period of four weeks. In case of default of deposit of rent, he shall be liable for eviction forthwith.