Hon. Dilip Gupta, J. This petition, at the instance of the tenant, seeks the quashing of the order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the tenanted shop for establishing the two grand sons in business has been allowed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2010 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act for setting aside the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed. 2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the landlord-David Jacob for release of the two tenanted shops for the need of his two grand sons Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob for establishing them in business. It was asserted that Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob, sons of his elder son Deepak Jacob, had studied only upto Intermediate and were unemployed. Vikas Jacob wanted to start a General Store shop while Abhishek Jacob wanted to start a 'Parchuni Shop' and for this purpose the landlord filed the application for release of the two shops. It was asserted that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in case the application was not allowed. 3. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the tenant and in paragraph 31 of the reply, it was asserted that the landlord had a house in Barthala Colony, another house in Ramganga Vihar, First Phase and a shop adjacent to Chandra & Chandra Architect. It was, therefore, asserted that the two grandsons could start their business from these places and the need of the landlord was not bona fide. It was also asserted that the tenant was likely to suffer greater hardship. 4. An affidavit in reply was filed by the landlord and in paragraph 44 it was asserted that the house at Barthala Colony was a residential house in the name of the wife of the landlord. The landlord did not own any house in Ramganga Vihar, First Phase and the house belonged to his daughter-in-law Asha Jacob. 4. An affidavit in reply was filed by the landlord and in paragraph 44 it was asserted that the house at Barthala Colony was a residential house in the name of the wife of the landlord. The landlord did not own any house in Ramganga Vihar, First Phase and the house belonged to his daughter-in-law Asha Jacob. It was also asserted that the landlord did not possess any shop adjacent to Chandra & Chandra Architect. In fact, Asha Jacob wife of Vinod Jacob was the owner of one Garage in which the car of Vinod Jacob was parked and one shop in which Dr. Agrawal was sitting as a licensee of Asha Jacob. 5. The Prescribed Authority, on a consideration of the materials filed by the parties, held that the need of the landlord for the two shops for establishing his two grandsons in business was bona fide and that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship. 6. The tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court by the order dated 30th April, 2010. The Appellate Court in its judgment and order dated 30th April, 2010 has considered the three submissions advanced by learned counsel for the tenant. The first submission that was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, which is noted in paragraph 10 of the judgment, is that the need of the grandsons cannot be considered since they are not family members. The second submission that was advanced was that the petitioner by hook or by crook wanted to get the tenanted shops vacated so that he could sell them and in this connection an affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar was also filed. The third submission was that the Prescribed Authority had not considered the partial release of the disputed occupation. 7. The first contention was rejected for the reason that the grandsons are family members and their need can be considered. The second submission was also rejected and the affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar was found to be false. The third submission was also rejected for the reason that the two grandsons needed two shops. 8. In the writ petition it is not asserted that any other submission, apart from the three submissions noted by the Appellate Court, were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant before the Appellate Court. 9. The third submission was also rejected for the reason that the two grandsons needed two shops. 8. In the writ petition it is not asserted that any other submission, apart from the three submissions noted by the Appellate Court, were raised by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant before the Appellate Court. 9. At the time of hearing of this petition, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court have failed to take into consideration the fact that the landlord had available two shops situated adjacent to Chandra & Chandra Architects, which could be made available to the two grandsons for establishing them in business. It is his submission that the Appellate Court has not at all adverted to this issue and has in a cryptic manner decided the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that the submission, as sought to be raised in this petition, was not raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Court. In this connection, he has placed before the Court the judgment and has pointed out that only three points were raised which were dealt with by the Appellate Court. It is also his submission that in any case, these two shops pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be considered for the need of the grandsons because the two shops belong to Asha Jacob, who is the wife of Vinod Jacob and not the landlord and that the two grandsons Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob are sons of Deepak Jacob. It is his submission that the landlord bona fide required the shops and was also likely to suffer greater hardship and the findings do not suffer from any illegality. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 12. A perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Court does not indicate that the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the two shops situated adjacent to Chandra & Chandra Architects was raised before the Appellate Court. In any case, it is found that these two shops are in the ownership of Asha Jacob wife of Vinod Jacob. The landlord David Jacob had set up the need for his two grandsons Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob sons of Deepak Jacob. In any case, it is found that these two shops are in the ownership of Asha Jacob wife of Vinod Jacob. The landlord David Jacob had set up the need for his two grandsons Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob sons of Deepak Jacob. It was asserted before the Prescribed Authority that one shop was used as a garage by the husband of Asha Jacob and the other shop had been given to Dr. Agrawal, as a licensee. These two shops were, therefore, not vacant and cannot be utilized by the two grandsons Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob. This apart, as they do not belong to the landlord or to the father of Vikas Jacob and Abhishek Jacob, they cannot be considered for the need of the two grandsons for establishing them in business. 13. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the two grandsons are employed and or doing business. The need of the grandfather for establishing his two grandsons in business is a bona fide need. Nothing has also been brought on record to show that any effort was made by the tenant to seek any alternative occupation during the pendency of the application before the Prescribed Authority. In such circumstances, the Prescribed Authority committed no illegality in holding that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship. 14. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. In the end learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that three months time may be given to the petitioner to handover peaceful possession of the shops to the landlord. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the Court may grant the aforesaid time provided the petitioner gives the usual undertaking within three weeks from today before the Court below. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises in dispute for a period of three months from today provided the petitioner gives the following undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within two weeks from today. (1) That the petitioner shall continue to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month up to the date he hands-over the possession of the shops to the landlord. (1) That the petitioner shall continue to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month up to the date he hands-over the possession of the shops to the landlord. (2) That the petitioner shall not induct any other person in the shops. (3) That the petitioner shall handover peaceful possession of the shops to the landlord on or before 13th May, 2012. 18. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to give the undertaking within the aforesaid period or fails to comply with any of the terms of the undertaking, then in that case, it will be open to the landlord to get the order enforced. _