Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- 1. An application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 (in short "Act") was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. It was alleged in the said application that Vikash Gupta and Pawan Gupta, sons of the Respondent No. 4 were unemployed and the disputed shop was required for them for business purposes. The petitioner contested the matter and filed his written statement. The Prescribed Authority after considering the pleadings and evidence on record allowed the said application filed under Section 21 of the Act by order dated 13. 5.2010. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 17 of 2010 and the appellate court by judgment and order dated 2.8.2011 dismissed the appeal. Hence the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. Both the courts below after perusing the pleadings and evidence on record held that the need of the landlords is bonafide and genuine since the sons of the Respondent No. 3 are unemployed and they do not have any other accommodation to carry on their independent businesses. Both the courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the landlords to be bonafide and genuine and the said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The courts below have also held that the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlords. It was also further held that during the pendency of the release application, the petitioner did not make any efforts to search out any alternative accommodation. The finding recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The appellate court below has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlords to be bonafide and genuine. The finding recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The appellate court below has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlords 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. 4. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I do not see any merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months' time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. 7. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioner gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlord opposite parties without inducting any third person within a period of six months' from today. It is further provided that the petitioner shall pay the entire arrears of rent including the rent payable upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 8. In the event of default in of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord opposite parties will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force.