Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— 1. An application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the "Act") was filed by the respondents-landlord for release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application by order dated 28.02.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 04 of 2009 under Section 22 of the Act and the same was dismissed on 20.01.2012. Hence the present writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Both the courts below after perusing the record held that the family of the respondents-landlord consists around 23 members and there are only six rooms in their possession, as such, the accommodation in their possession is not sufficient to accommodate them. It was further held that the petitioner has already got a double storyed building, which is being used for the commercial as well as residential purpose and this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. 4. Both the courts below have recorded the findings 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. 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 for 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 or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. 5. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result this petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that at least six months time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. 5. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result this petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that at least six months time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlord did not raise any objection to it. 7. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioner give his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlord without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate payable upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 8. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord-respondents will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner, if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force. _