Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 23.12.2010 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional District Judge, Jalaun in Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2007, whereby the judgement and order dated 11.07.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 06 of 2003 was set aside and the release application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "Act") was allowed. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The Respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner for release of the disputed premises. The said application was registered as P.A. Case No. 06 of 2003. In the release application, the need was set up by the landlord forhimself and his two educated unemployed sons. The disputed accommodation consists of one big room, three small rooms, staircase, gallery, latrine and bathroom, which was let out to the father of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.300/- per month as rent, which was increased to Rs.425/- per month. The petitioner is running a Restaurant in the said premises. 3. It was pleaded by the Respondent-landlord in the release application that he is carrying on a business of agricultural equipments from the gallery adjacent to the shop in dispute. The said gallery is also being used as passage to reach first and second floor of the building. The area of the gallery which is being used by the respondent-landlord for business as well as for purpose of passage is 6'-1/2" X 66'. The said gallery is very narrow and congested and is not suitable for carrying on business of agricultural equipments, as such, the respondent-landlord is not able to carry on business of the agricultural equipments smoothly. It was further pleaded that his two sons including Vivek Kumar, who is about to complete his graduation from the Agriculture University, Pant Nagar would join the family business butowing to the paucity of accommodation, it is not possible to expand the business. 4. The release application was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged that the respondent-landlord has got sufficient accommodation to carry on his business. It was further pleaded that the respondent-landlord has also taken one Godown at Gandhi Market on rent, therefore, the need of the respondent-landlord is neither bonafide nor genuine. 4. The release application was contested by the petitioner. It was alleged that the respondent-landlord has got sufficient accommodation to carry on his business. It was further pleaded that the respondent-landlord has also taken one Godown at Gandhi Market on rent, therefore, the need of the respondent-landlord is neither bonafide nor genuine. The Trial Court by order dated 11.07.2007 dismissed the release application of the respondent-landlord mainly on the grounds i.e. (a) no affidavit of the sons were filed by the respondent- landlord in support of his case, (b) the respondent- landlord has one Godown in his possession, (c) landlord can carry on his business from the first floor of the disputed building. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the respondent-landlord filed an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The same was allowed by order dated 23.12.2010. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously challenged the bonafide and genuine need of therespondent-landlord. It was mainly contended that during the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner stating that the adjoining premises (which is being used by the landlord for business purpose) is in possession of the respondent-landlord measuring 6'10" X 67'9" as per the map filed along with the release application. It was further submitted that the offer made by the petitioner before the Appellate Court for surrendering an area measuring 6' X 40' of the disputed shop was not considered in proper perspective by the Appellate Court, as such, provision of Rule 16(1)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 were totally ignored. It was further pleaded that the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. It is not disputed that the sons of the respondent- landlord are educated unemployed youths and after completing their education, they are not carrying any independent business. Learned counsel for therespondent-landlord has submitted that the respondent is carrying on business of agricultural equipments from the gallery admeasuring 6-1/2' X 66', which also provide access to the first and second floor of the residential block of the building. Thus, the gallery is also used for the purpose of passage. 8. Learned counsel for therespondent-landlord has submitted that the respondent is carrying on business of agricultural equipments from the gallery admeasuring 6-1/2' X 66', which also provide access to the first and second floor of the residential block of the building. Thus, the gallery is also used for the purpose of passage. 8. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Court remitted following two issues to the Prescribed Authority for recording findings on the same. Firstly, the Prescribed Authority was directed to record a finding whether the agricultural equipments can be carried to the first and second floor of the building through the staircase and secondly whether there is any other access to the first and second floor of the disputed building except through the said staircase. The Trial Court after perusing the evidence including Amin's Report recorded a finding that the agricultural equipments are so huge and bulky that it can not be lifted to the first and second floor of the disputed building through the staircase as it is too narrow for such purposes. Finding was further recorded that there is no other access to reach the first and second floor of the disputed building except the aforementionedstaircase. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has filed short counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the premises from where the petitioner is carrying on his business is also being used as passage to reach the first and second floor of the residential block of the building. It has also been stated by the respondent-landlord in para 4 of the short counter affidavit that a litigation in respect of that passage (which is presently used by the landlord for business purpose), which is marked A B E F in the map annexed to the release application is pending in the Civil Court. The said suit bearing O.S. No. 113 of 1992 has been filed by one Sri Virendra Kumar Pathak claiming ownership over that passage where from the respondent conducts his business. The said suit was decreed against the respondent by judgement and order dated 31.10.2011 by the Trial Court. Against the said judgement and order, the respondent-landlord filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge and stay was granted to landlord. The said appeal is still pending. The said suit was decreed against the respondent by judgement and order dated 31.10.2011 by the Trial Court. Against the said judgement and order, the respondent-landlord filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge and stay was granted to landlord. The said appeal is still pending. In the said suit the dispute is whether the passage from where the petitioner is carrying on the business belongs to the landlord-respondent orthe plaintiff Sri Virendra Kumar Pathak, who claimed it as common Rasta as it is adjacent to his commercial building on the northern side of the shop. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offer made by the petitioner for surrendering an area measuring 6' X 40' of the disputed shop was not considered in proper perspective by the Appellate Court. 11. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The area of disputed premises is 19'-8" X 67' and the area of passage from where the respondent is carrying on his business of agricultural equipments is 67'-8" X 6'-6", even if, the offer given by the petitioner is accepted, the frontage passage would still be too small i.e. 12 feet 6 inches. It will not be possible for the landlord to carry on his business along with his two sons. The agricultural equipments are quite bulky and huge and requires a lot of space. Moreover, the said gallery is also being used as a passage to reach the first and second floor through the staircase. This apart, as indicatedherein above, a litigation is also pending between the respondent-landlord and one Virendra Kumar Pathak with respect to the passage from where the respondent is carrying on its business. The said suit bearing O.S. No. 113 of 1992 was filed by one Virendra Kumar Pathak claiming ownership over that passage. The suit was decreed against the landlord by judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 by the Trial Court. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the landlord in the Court of District Judge and the stay was granted. Appeal is still pending before the Court below. Thus the title over that passage is under dispute. The suit was decreed against the landlord by judgment and order dated 31.10.2001 by the Trial Court. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the landlord in the Court of District Judge and the stay was granted. Appeal is still pending before the Court below. Thus the title over that passage is under dispute. It was further worthwhile to note that release application under section 21 of the Act was filed by the respondent in the year 2003, no such plea with regard to part release was ever raised by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority. It was only at the fag end of the hearing of the appeal that a prayer for part release of the disputed shop was made. The courts below has rightly held that the business of agricultural equipments requires lot of space and they are usually very huge and heavy. The Appellate court was fully justified in rejecting the offer made by the petitioner withregard to part release of the accommodation. It may also be noted that due to paucity of accommodation, the respondent has taken one godown on rent for storage purpose and said godown is quite far away from the disputed premises. 12. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact holding the need of the landlord to be bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord, and the said findings are based on the evidence available on record. It was further held that the petitioner did not make any effort to search for any alternative accommodation during the pendency of the release application. The Appellate Court has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The finding recorded by the Appellate Court is 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 landlord 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 court below. Unlessit is found that the conclusion drawn by the Appellate court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. 13. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the court below. Unlessit is found that the conclusion drawn by the Appellate court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. 13. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 15. In the result this petition is accordingly dismissed. 16. After the above judgment was delivered today, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least three months time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. 17. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, three month's 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 theconcerned Court within one month from today specifically stating therein that they will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlord opposite party without inducting any third person within a period of three months from today and also deposit the entire amount including the current rent/damages for use and occupation of the disputed premises within a period of one month from today. 18. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord opposite party will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner, if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force. _