Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— An application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 (in short "Act") was filed by the respondent for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material available on record allowed the said application filed under Section 21 of the Act by order dated 16.1.2012. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 14 of 2012 and the same was dismissed by order dated 6.2.2012. Hence the present writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Both the courts below after perusing the pleadings and evidence on record held that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship also tills in favour of the landlord. The court below have categorically recorded the findings that the son of the landlord for whom the need has been set up by the landlord is neither carrying on any independent business nor has any suitable alternative accommodation. It was further held that the during the pendency of the release application, the petitioners did not make any effort to search out any alternative accommodation. It was further held by the court below that if the petitioners are evicted from the disputed house, he will not suffer any greater hardship. 4. Both the courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the petitioners 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 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 landlord to be bonafide and genuine. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not substitute its own opinion to 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. 5. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 6. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not substitute its own opinion to 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. 5. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned orders. 7. In the result this petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. It was lastly urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at least one year's time may be granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in dispute so that in the meantime they may be able to search out some other suitable accommodation. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord did not raise any objection to it. 9. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, one year's time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises in dispute provided they gives their undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority by 10th July 2012 specifically stating therein that they will hand over peaceful possession of the disputed accommodation to the respondent-landlord without inducting any third person within a period of one year from today and will deposit the entire rent/damages at the rate of Rs. 15007- per month for use and occupation of the disputed premises by 10th July 2012 before the prescribed authority for immediate payment to the landlord. 10. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioners in accordance with law. _