Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- 1. An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") was filed by the Respondent No. 1 for release of the disputed shop. The respondent No. 1 set up the need of her son Ravi Bansal for carrying on the business of electrical goods from the disputed shop. Written statement was filed by the petitioner and contested the release application. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 6.12.2010 allowed the said release application. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 5 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by order dated 12.8.2011. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the need of the respondent is neither genuine nor bonafide, and the comparitive hardship tilts in favour of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the Ravi Bansal (son of the respondent No. 1) is already carrying on the business of Thekedari and Insurance, as such, he does not require the disputed shop. It is further submitted that the Ravi Bansal is also carrying on the business along with his brother Rajiv Bansal from the premises No. 16/169. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned orders passed by the court below and submitted that the courts below have recorded a finding that the need of the Respondent No. 1 is bonafide and genuine, and the comparatives hardship also tilts in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the said finding is based on record. The court below has recorded a finding that although the son of the respondent No. 1 is doing businesses of Thekedari and Insurance but the income from the said business is very meager and not sufficient to support himself, therefore, Ravi Bansal (son of the respondent No. 1) wants to augment his income by starting a new business from the disputed shop, therefore, he cannot be denied to carry on the business of electrical goods. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is having a diploma in electrical engineering, therefore, he wants to carry on the business of electrical goods from the disputed shop. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is having a diploma in electrical engineering, therefore, he wants to carry on the business of electrical goods from the disputed shop. He further submitted that apart from the disputed shop, the petitioners have got two more shops in their possession and also own a residential house. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact, holding the need of the landlady-respondent No. 1, to be bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship in favour of the landlady-respondent No. 1. The said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order in favour of the landlady-respondent No. 1. The findings recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant consideration. The courts below have on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlady-respondent No. 1 to be bonafide and genuine. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the lower court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. 6. No other point was pressed on behalf of the petitioners. 7. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that at least six months' time may be granted to them for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlady-respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection to it. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that at least six months' time may be granted to them for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlady-respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection to it. 9. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, six months' time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioners give their undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that they will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlady-respondent No. 1 without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate payable upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 10. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlady-respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioners, if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force.