Krishna Murari, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a tenant's petition challenging the orders directing his ejectment in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by the respondent-landlord. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court has concurrently held that need of the landlord to establish his son in the shop in dispute is bona fide and genuine. The issue of comparative hardship has also been decided in favour of the respondent-landlord. When confronted with the observation that the findings of fact in respect of the bona fide and genuine need and comparative hardship are based on proper appraisal of evidence and no such fact could be pointed out which may go to demonstrate that the findings are either based on misreading of fact or non-consideration of evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to grant some reasonable time to vacate the premises. In view of the fact that writ petition is concluded by findings of facts based on proper appraisal of evidence recorded by the two courts below, writ petition stands dismissed. However considering the facts, 9 months' time from today is allowed to the petitioner to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord, subject to the condition that he files an undertaking to this effect on an affidavit before the prescribed authority within four weeks from today and deposits a sum of Rs.2025/- in lump sum calculated at the rate of Rs.225/- (which is monthly rent) for use and occupation of the shop in dispute, with the Prescribed Authority within the same period. Respondent-landlord shall be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited. In case of default, the order allowing time to vacate the premises shall loose its efficacy and the decree of eviction shall be liable to be executed through process of law. _____________