Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are tenants of the accommodation in dispute consisting of two rooms, Tin-shed, Verandah, Latrine, Bathroom and Kitchen on ground floor of House no. 8/95-96, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The respondents are the landlords of the accommodation in dispute. It is stated that one Vijay Shankar, respondent no.7 filed an application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute after the death of original tenant Ranjeet Grover on the ground that the building in question has fallen vacant as one of the sons of the tenant had purchased a residential accommodation, Flat No. 113/4, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 33 of 2006. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice under Rule 8 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Rules, 1972 to the tenant. The Rent Control Inspector visited the spot and submitted his report on 27.7.2006. Thereupon a Misc. Case No. 66 of 2006 under Section 12(1) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was registered. The petitioners tenant filed objection denying the averments made in the allotment application. After hearing both the parties and going through the record the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 15.6.2010 declared the vacancy. In the mean time, respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed application under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that they are residing at House No. 8/21, Arya Nagar, Kanpur Nagar; that their family members are grown up 20 and that the accommodation in dispute had fallen vacant. It was registered as Case No. 6 of 2007. It is further stated that the petitioners filed an application under Section 16(5) of the Act for review of the order dated 15.6.2010 by which the vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute was declared fixing 7.1.2010 for considering the release/allotment. Objection was filed by the landlords denying the contents of the application. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 2.8.2010 released the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. Objection was filed by the landlords denying the contents of the application. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 2.8.2010 released the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved by the orders dated 15.6.2010 and 2.8.2010 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioners filed Rent Revision No. 46 of 2010, Smt. Meena Grover and another versus Raj Kumar Mehrotra and others before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 2.4.2011, hence the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the orders dated 15.6.2010 and 2.8.2010 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the judgment and order dated 2.4.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Vikas Grover son of original tenant late Ranjeet Grover, who had purchased a Flat No. 16, Classic Apartment, Saroop Nagar on 30.10.2004, does not come within the definition of family defined in Section 3(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hence even if one of the sons of the tenant had acquired residential accommodation it will not render the accommodation in dispute as vacant; that petitioner no.2, the younger son of late Ranjeet Grover was running Packers Profession in the accommodation in dispute and is residing along with his mother therein having no concern with Flat purchased by Vikas Grover. He further submits that from perusal of notice ( Annexure-1) it is apparent that notice of inspection was issued in the name of original tenant late Ranjit Gover, who was the earlier tenant, was no more on the date of issuance of notice as he died on 9.12.2005, therefore, the notice was ex-facie, illegal and the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules have not been complied with and that the notice was not served upon the petitioners. He also submits that the Revisional Court has wrongly observed that the entire family members of original tenant late Ranjeet Grover is residing in the Flat purchased by Vikas Grover and only Akas Grover is running business in the accommodation in dispute and the entire findings of the Revisional Court are mainly based upon facts that Vikas Grover has purchased a residential accommodation. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the elder son Vikas Grover of original tenant late Ranjit Gover had purchased a residential house during life time of Ranjit Grover and he comes within the definition of family as defined under Section 3(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the present petitioners tenants have no right to contest the release application and also have no right to continue as tenants in the accommodation in dispute; and that the impugned orders dated 15.6.2010 and 2.8.2010 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the order dated 2.4.2011 passed by the Revisional Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, hence no interference is required by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the orders of the courts below it is apparent that Ranjit Grover was the original tenant of the accommodation in dispute. He died on 9.12.2005. His elder son Vikas Grover was also residing there along with him. During the life time of his father Vikas Grover had purchased a residential house by sale-deed dated 30.10.2004 and is residing therein since then. The appellate Court concluded that there is no evidence on record to indicate that at the time of execution of the sale-deed relating to purchase of residential accommodation by Vikas Grover he was not residing in the tenanted accommodation along with his father and he had separated from his father. The appellate Court has also recorded a finding of fact that the court below found that Vikas Grover is residing along with his family in Flat No. 16, Apartment No. 113/14, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar in which he is doing the business of packers. The appellate Court has relied upon the case of Prabhakar Gaur versus VIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 2002(2) ARC-467 in which it was held that if release order has been passed after hearing one of the tenants then it will not be appropriate and proper to reopen the matter upon rehearing the co-tenants. The definition of the family is defined in Section 3(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which reads thus. The definition of the family is defined in Section 3(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which reads thus. "3(g) "family" in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her- (i) spouse, (ii) male lineal descendants, (iii) such parents, grand-parents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her, and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building." "Family " has been defined under Section 3(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, according to which Vikas Grover being the elder son of original tenant late Ranjit Gover comes within the definition of the family being a male lineal descendants of the tenant, therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that Vikas Grover does not come within the definition of the family has no force as he had separated in the life time of his father about a year before his death for the simple reason that scheme of the Act i.e. Explanation (i) to proviso-III of Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that as soon as any member of family of the tenant acquires an alternative accommodation in vacant state the plea of bonafide need and comparative hardship would not be available to the tenant, therefore, if he would have acquired the Flat No. 113/4 after the death of his father, the tenancy would have devolved upon him along with mother and brother but in that case also he would have no case after acquiring the alternative accommodation. Thus, in any view of the matter he cannot be granted any relief on this ground. In so far as service of notice under Rule 8( 2) of the Rules upon the tenants is concerned, the appellate Court concluded that notice issued to Ranjit Grover Proprietor, Akas Packers House No.8/95-96 Arya Nagar was received on 14.5.2006 by Akas Grover, who is residing along with his mother, hence the service of notice upon Akas Grover, the son of original tenant Ranjit Grover and his mother is sufficient. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that a member of the tenants' family has acquired a residential accommodation, hence they have no right to continue in the accommodation in dispute. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that a member of the tenants' family has acquired a residential accommodation, hence they have no right to continue in the accommodation in dispute. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of the courts below, hence no interference is required by this Court. For all the reasons state above, the writ petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners requested the Court for allowing reasonable time to the tenants for vacating the accommodation in dispute. As prayed, six weeks' time is allowed to the tenants-petitioners for vacating and handing over peaceful possession of the accommodation in dispute to the landlords. No order as to costs.