JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The release application of the respondent landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the house in dispute from the tenancy of the petitioner has been allowed by the prescribed authority and the order has been affirmed by the appellate court. 3. The two courts below have concurrently found that the need of the respondent landlord for the house in dispute is genuine and the bonafide and that they would suffer comparatively more hardship in case the application for release is not allowed. 4. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact and there appears to be no perversity in any of them. 5. In view of the above, I do not consider it to be a case fit enough for granting any indulgence in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. Sri Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner in the last has submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and is suffering from paralysis and therefore he may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the house in dispute. 7. Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if some reasonable time is granted at the discretion of the Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed permitting the petitioner to vacate the house in dispute within a period of six months from today provided he gives an undertaking on the affidavit before the prescribed authority within a period of one month from today that he will vacate and handover peaceful possession of the premises in dispute within the time allowed to the respondent landlord and clears of all the arrears of rent till the date of vacation. Petition is dismissed.