JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J. - Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners who claim to be tenants of the accommodation in dispute and Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1- landlady. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad, whereby the release application filed by the respondent-landlady for need of her son has been allowed and tenanted accommodation under House No.52, Johnsenganj in possession of the petitioner-tenant has been directed to be released. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit today annexing thereto a photostat copy of an alleged notary agreement entered into by the respondent-landlady with a third party relating to the house in question. 4. The first submission of Sri Verma is that when the respondent-landlady is selling the house in question as is apparent from the notary agreement the bonafide need set up by the landlady for her son is clearly not made out. 5. The second submission is that the respondent-landlady has got several other houses in the locality and, therefore, it cannot be said that her son does not have accommodation otherwise then that in possession of the petitioner for running his business. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant as also learned counsel for the respondent-landlady the concurrent finding of fact have been recorded in both the impugned orders with respect to bonafide need of the son of the respondent-landlady. It has been clearly recorded that the son of the landlady is working on daily wages at the shop of a relative and, therefore, he wants to set up a watch repairing shop in the premises in question. Such need was found to be bonafide. On the question of comparative hardship both the Courts below have found that the houses alleged to be owned by the respondent-landlady are actually not owned by her inasmuch as either they belong to her brothers and are occupied or the husband of the landlady has got 1/3rd undivided share in the same. Such need was found to be bonafide. On the question of comparative hardship both the Courts below have found that the houses alleged to be owned by the respondent-landlady are actually not owned by her inasmuch as either they belong to her brothers and are occupied or the husband of the landlady has got 1/3rd undivided share in the same. The Courts below have considered the availability of the said houses and found that House No.43 and 35 have an area of 6 ft. x 18.5 ft. and 10 ft. x 20 ft.. It found that if the respondent-landlady has got 1/3rd of her husband's share in the aforesaid houses having such a small area then 1/3rd area even if taken by the husband or the landlady would not suffice as a shop for the purpose of running a business by her son. The Courts below have concurrently held that the comparative hardship would be more to the landlady and that the respondent-tenant is engaged in the business of commission agent and as such have released the shop in favour of the landlady for the need of her son. 7. No error can be found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. 8. Insofar as the photostat copy of the notarial agreement filed by the petitioner alongwith the supplementary affidavit is concerned the same is neither registered nor it has affected any conveyance or transfer of the property in question. Consequently, the said document cannot be made the basis for holding that the landlady-respondent no.1 is selling the house in question or that, therefore, has no bonafide need for the premises in question for the business of her son. Consequently, the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The impugned orders being concluded by the concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below requires no interference by this Court. 9. The writ petition is devoid of force and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. After the aforesaid order had been dictated in the Court Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioners-tenants be given some time to vacate the shop in question, since they have been doing business from the premises for nearly 50 years. 11. The writ petition is devoid of force and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. After the aforesaid order had been dictated in the Court Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioners-tenants be given some time to vacate the shop in question, since they have been doing business from the premises for nearly 50 years. 11. Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady has agreed to grant of time but states that the petitioner-tenants should vacate and handover peaceful possession to the landlady on or before 31st March, 2011 and also continue to pay the rent of the premises during this period. 12. In view of the aforesaid submission it is provided as hereunder:- 1. The petitioner-tenants shall vacate the premises in question on or before 31st March, 2011. 2. The petitioner-tenants shall not induct any third person or third party in the premises in question during time they are in occupation and shall pay any arrears of rent and continue to pay the rent by the 7th of the succeeding month when it falls due to the respondent-landlady. 3. The petitioner-tenants shall give individual undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority that they shall vacate and handover the premises in question to the respondent-landlady on or before 31st March, 2011 and that they shall not induct any third person or third party in the premises in question. 4. The undertaking be given by the petitioners individually and separately before the Prescribed Authority within three weeks from today. In case of default in giving the undertaking as provided above the petitioners shall be liable for eviction forthwith without waiting for 31st March, 2011. In the event of default in paying the rent by the 7th of succeeding month when it falls due this order shall stand vacated and the petitioners shall be liable to be evicted forthwith. 13. The prayer made by Sri A.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner is disposed of as above. 14. No order is passed as to costs. 15. Office is required to issue certified copy of this order to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. Petition Dismissed