JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order in the proceeding under Section 16(1)(b) for release of disputed house after declaration of vacancy under Section 12(3) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The vacancy has been declared on the ground that the house which was in the ownership of the tenant's mother became available to him after death of his parents for residential purpose. This apart, it was further found that one more house has been allotted in the name of tenant within the municipal limit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the findings recorded by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer on declaration of vacancy. No interference is required in the order of vacancy dated 31.1.2013. 4. So far as release is concerned, the petitioner has no locus to dispute the bonafide need of the landlord. In the totality of the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the orders. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that the petitioner may be allowed a reasonable time to remove his belongings and shift to another place. To this submission, Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 7. In view thereof, it is provided that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar that he would vacate the premises in question on or before 30.4.2016 and would pay damages for use and occupation of the premises till the date of vacation. In case, the petitioner fails to file the undertaking or vacate the premises within the time given above, proceedings for his eviction shall be initiated.