Dilip Gupta, J.;- The tenants have filed this petition for quashing the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011 by which the appeal filed by the landlord under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for setting aside the order dated 2nd December, 1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, was allowed. It is stated that the landlord filed an application on 18th November, 1987 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the residential accommodation as it was bona fide required by the landlord. It was stated that the tenant was occupying one room and a Varanda on the first floor of the house on a monthly rent of Rs.60/-; that the family of the landlord consisted of five persons and the landlord had in his possession only one room on the first floor, a Varanda and Angan on the ground floor; that there was no kitchen and storeroom and a portion of the space below the staircase being was used as a kitchen and storeroom; that the marriage of applicant No.1 had been settled and so he also required another room and that the tenant was not likely to suffer any hardship as he was an Engine Driver in the Northern Railways and could get an alternative accommodation. The tenant filed a reply to the aforesaid application filed by the landlord. It was stated that the need of the landlord was not bona fide as there was sufficient accommodation available with him. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 2nd December, 1994 rejected the application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act holding that the landlord could partition the rooms and that the tenant had no other accommodation available with him and that his family consists of 13 persons. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 1995. This appeal has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011. The Appellate Court has observed that the landlord bona fide required the tenanted portion as the accommodation available with the landlord was not sufficient. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 1995. This appeal has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011. The Appellate Court has observed that the landlord bona fide required the tenanted portion as the accommodation available with the landlord was not sufficient. It has also been observed that the tenant had in fact constructed a new house at Karelli and had shifted with his family to the said house but was keeping the tenanted house locked. It also observed that the tenant had two luxury cars and one Jeep which was being used as Taxi. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the family of the tenant is large and the newly constructed house is not sufficient for his family. He, therefore, submits that the tenanted portion is actually required by the tenant and the landlord does not bona fide require the house. It is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. The Appellate Court has found as a fact that a new house had been constructed by the tenant in which he had shifted with his family. It is not denied by the petitioners that a new house was constructed, but what is sought to be suggested is that the said accommodation is not sufficient for his family. The need of the landlord has been found to be bona fide looking to the size of her family and, therefore, in such a situation when the landlord does not have available sufficient space for the family members and for kitchen and storeroom, it cannot be said that the need of the landlord is not bona fide or that he is not likely to suffer greater hardship. It is, therefore, not possible to interfere with the findings recorded by the Appellate Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be given to the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute. Learned counsel for the landlord has stated that the landlord has no objection if one month time is granted. The tenant is, accordingly, granted one month time to handover peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord subject to the tenants giving an undertaking within two weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority to the following effect :- 1. The tenant is, accordingly, granted one month time to handover peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord subject to the tenants giving an undertaking within two weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority to the following effect :- 1. That the tenants shall handover peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord on or before 10th February, 2012. 2. That the tenants shall pay damages at the rate of Rs.250/- per month up to the date they hand-over the possession of the premises to the landlord. 3. That the tenant shall not induct any other person in the premises. It is made clear that in the event the tenants fails to give the undertaking within the aforesaid period or fails to comply with any of the terms of the undertaking, it will be open to the landlord to get the eviction order executed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations.