JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.S. Rai learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.1.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Azamgarh in Appeal No. 28 of 2013 and the judgment and order dated 12.2.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Small Causes Court, Azamgarh in Release Application filed by the respondent No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is tenant of two shops on the ground floor and first floor of premises situated at Mohalla Mukeriganj City district Azamgarh which is owned by the respondents first set, who had purchased the same in the year 2002. It is next contended that on 12.4.2006 respondents first set-landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction, which was dismissed by the trial court. It is further argued that respondent No. 1 has filed Civil Revision No. 245 of 2006 before the revisional court against the order of the trial judge which was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 08.10.2013. It is next contended that in the meantime respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner as well as one Vinod Kumar Chauhan for release of their shops in their possession which was contested by the petitioner and Vinod Kumar Chauhan, which application was allowed by Prescribed Authority on 12.2.2013. It is next contended that the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority being Appeal No. 28 of 2013, which was also dismissed by the Appellate court on 21.1.2015. It is next argued that the bona fide need of the landlord was not considered inasmuch as the landlord had got other shops vacated from the other tenant which was subsequently sold which fact itself shows that the landlord does not bona fidely needs the same. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that bona fide need and comparative hardship was duly considered by the courts below and the courts have concurrently decided against the petitioner, which order suffers from no infirmity in law and warrant no interference by this Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders impugned? 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders impugned? and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any good ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders impugned. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a cancer patient and is undergoing treatment at Mumbai and he prays that some reasonable time may be given to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question. 8. Accordingly, eight months from today is granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question subject to payment of monthly rent by 07th of each calendar month till handing over the actual possession to the respondent-landlord and also the petitioner shall give an undertaking on oath before the court below within fifteen days from today with regard to vacation of the premises in question within eight months. 9. The amount so deposited by the petitioner may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents-landlords, after due verification by the courts below. 10. In case of default of conditions mentioned above, this protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand vacated.