Anil Kumar, J.;- Heard Sri G.M.Kamil, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondents. Controversy in the present case relates to shop situated in a house at Mohalla Hayatganj, Post office and Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkarnagar, Dilip Kumar is landlord-owner and petitioner (Bhuwan Bhaskar) is tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. On 05.09.2008, landlord/respondent no. 2 moved an application for release of the premises in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972, accordingly a P.A. Case no. 2 of 1998 registered before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge(J.D.), Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, petitioner/tenant has filed written statement. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, the Prescribed Authority by means of order dated 16.10.2006 dismissed the release application moved by landlord/respondent no. 2. Aggrieved by said order, landlord/respondent no. 2 filed a Rent Appeal (registered as Civil Appeal no. 10 of 2006(Dilip Kumar Vs. Bhuwan Bhaskar), Appellate Authority after considering the material facts on record and also taking into consideration the family members of landlord/respondent no. 2, eight in number, held that his need is more genuine and bonafide to get shop released in his favour. It was further held by appellate authority that tenant is doing business of repairing electric goods from the shop in question can shift anywhere in order to settle the said business, accordingly by means of order dated 23.11.2010, the respondent no. 1 allowed appeal and set aside the order dated 16.10.2006 passed by Prescribed Authority. Order dated 23.11.2010 passed by Appellate Authority/Additional District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2006 (Dilip Kumar Vs. Bhuwan Bhaskar) has been challenged in present writ petition. Sri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for petitioner as per instruction received to him submits that in case petitioner is granted some time to vacate the shop in question, his client will not press the present writ petition and handed over the peaceful possession of the same to landlord/respondent no. 2. The said offer given by petitioner is not disputed, rather admitted by Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. For the foregoing reasons, without entering and deciding factual controversy involved in present case on merit, the writ petition is dismissed with observation that petitioner shall hand over the peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord/respondent no. 2 on or before 30.11.2011. 2. For the foregoing reasons, without entering and deciding factual controversy involved in present case on merit, the writ petition is dismissed with observation that petitioner shall hand over the peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord/respondent no. 2 on or before 30.11.2011. Provide he gives an undertaking in this regard by filing an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks from today and also pay regularly rent for the said period each and every month before 7th day of month for the period he retain the possession of shop in question. Failing which, respondent no.2/landlord has a liberty to execute orders passed by court below. No order as to costs.