Sudhir Agarwal, J.;- 1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.M. Kazim, learned counsel appearing for respondents and perused the record. 2. Petitioners are tenant in a commercial premises in the shape of garage situated in House No. 28, Khayaliganj, Lucknow. Respondent no. 1 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) seeking eviction of petitioners from premises in question on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. It was opposed by petitioners but Prescribed Authority allowed the same vide judgement dated 11.8.2003 directing petitioners to vacate the garage in question within one month and hand over possession to respondent no. 1. 3. Aggrieved thereto petitioners filed an appeal, i.e., Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2003 which has also been dismissed by Appellate Court vide judgment dated 7.3.2006 contained as Annexure 9 to this writ petition. Both the courts below have recorded findings of fact holding the issues of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of respondent no. 1. 4. Though in general petitioners have taken several grounds that impugned orders are not consistent with law laid down by Apex Court, the evidence has not been properly appreciated and findings are not sustainable but during the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners could not sustain the above grounds by placing any authority before this court as alleged which is said to have been misapplied or misread or misconstrued by Courts below. It is also not shown that concurrent findings of fact, in any manner, are perverse or contrary to record warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, stated that petitioners may be permitted some time to vacate premises in question. 6. To the aforesaid request learned counsel for respondent no. 1 also did not have any serious objection and both sides agreed that ends of justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to vacate premises in question within three months and to handover vacant possession to respondent no. 1 on the date of expiry of three months from today of the garage in question. 7. 1 also did not have any serious objection and both sides agreed that ends of justice would be met if petitioners are permitted to vacate premises in question within three months and to handover vacant possession to respondent no. 1 on the date of expiry of three months from today of the garage in question. 7. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders but considering the above facts and also the statement of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that in case petitioners file an undertaking before Prescribed Authority within one week from today stating clearly that vacant possession of premises in question shall be handed over to respondent no. 1 immediately on expiry of three months from today, the execution of orders impugned in this writ petition shall remain suspended for the aforesaid period. In case the petitioners fail to submit any such undertaking, as directed above, the respondents shall be free to proceed without any further reference to this Court and protection, as directed above, shall stand automatically vacated. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is dismissed.