JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Court, Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Kanpur Nagar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlady has resorted to concealment of material facts, and therefore, her application under section 21(1) (a) of the U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in question on ground of bona fide need ought not to be considered. He has referred to Rule 16(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, wherein it has been provided that in considering the requirement of personal occupation for the purpose of residence by the landlady or any member of the family, the Prescribed Authority shall also have regard to such factors as are given under the various sub clauses of the Rules. Clause (a) of Sub Rule (1) specifically states that if the landlord already has adequate and reasonably suitable accommodation having regard to the number of members of his family and their respective ages and his means and social status, his claim for additional requirement shall be construed strictly. 3. Learned counsel for the tenant has stated that the landlady while issuing notice to the tenant to vacate the premises in question had mentioned that the tenant had in his possession two rooms and one veranda on the first floor along with one bathroom, one kitchen and toilet, whereas in the plaint in question, she has referred to three rooms and one veranda, therefore, she has resorted to concealment and misrepresentation. 4. The petitioner-tenant in his written statement has specifically denied that he was in possession of three rooms at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month, instead he had stated that he had inherited the tenancy from his father late Jagannath of two rooms in House No. 11/47 A, Galwal Toli, Sootar Ganj, Kanpur Nagar at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, and on refusal of the landlady to take rent as offerred to her, he has filed the same through application before the learned court on 31.12.2014. 5. 50/- per month, and on refusal of the landlady to take rent as offerred to her, he has filed the same through application before the learned court on 31.12.2014. 5. In the written statement the tenant had specifically stated that on the ground floor of the house in question, the landlady had rented out vacated premises from erstwhile tenant, and if she was in dire need of the accommodation as mentioned in the plaint, she could have shifted the family on the ground floor. The need of the landlady was not genuine and bona fide, and ought not to have been considered at all by the learned court below only because of the concealment and misrepresentation of facts by the landlady. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Devi Shankar Yagnik adn others vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh and others, reported in 2013 (2) AWC 1384 . He has read out paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment also to this Court, where this Court has observed that the release application was rightly rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority recording the correct finding of fact that the landlords-petitioners had concealed information regarding several other non-residential properties in the city of Aligarh being possessed by them, and the landlord could not show any personal or bona fide need for release of shop in question. 7. Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has pointed out that relevant paragraphs of the plaint filed by the landlady, mainly paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 thereof, wherein the accommodation presently in possession of the landlady has been mentioned, and the number of member of the family, which included herself, her husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law and also her grandmother-in-law, who was above 90 years of age along with two grownup sons aged 20 and 22 years, who were now eligible to be married, but could not be married because of lack of space in the accommodation in question. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the landlady had only two rooms on the first floor of the house in question, namely, House No. 11/47 A, Galwal Toli, Sootar Ganj, Kanpur Nagar, and to accommodate the need of the growing family, she had taken on rent one room, one veranda and courtyard of adjoining House No. 11/47. The Prescribed Authority while considering the bona fide need of the landlady had noted that the landlady and her husband were both old, and they were residing in the second floor in two rooms of the house in question, whereas the tenant-petitioner was residing on the first floor. The Prescribed Authority had although taken into account the alleged additional accommodation said to be available to the landlady on the ground floor, it has found that two shops exists on the ground floor, which had already been let out on rent. The Prescribed Authority has made a note of the fact that in the adjoining house, the landlady had taken additional accommodation on rent and she should not be forced to live on rent where she owned the house, which had suitable accommodation on the first floor, where the tenant-respondent was residing on meagre rent. The Prescribed Authority also took into account the settled position in law that the tenant could not dictate terms to the landlord regarding how best to settle his affairs regarding his residential need, which was established beyond doubt. The additional accommodation of one plot No. 40 situated in Kunti Nagar Barra 2, Kanpur Nagar was also considered by the Prescribed Authority, where a tin shed existed and it was not fit for accommodating the landlady. The Prescribed Authority also considered the offer of landlady made to the tenant to shift to the tin shed at Plot No. 40, Kunti Nagar Barra 2, Kanpur Nagar, which offer was not taken by the tenant. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out from the order passed by the learned Appellate Court that the house in question No. 11/47 A, was bought by the landlady on 04.06.2008 and notice to vacate the premises was issued on 19.07.2010, and the application for release was moved later on 12.03.2013, thus, the requirement in the proviso to section 21(1) (a) had been met by the landlady. 10. 10. With regard to the bona fide need also the Appellate Authority had found the conclusions arrived at on factual consideration by the Prescribed Authority to be correct and not warranting any interference. The family of the landlady had been residing in the house in question for more than three generations, and therefore, she had bought the House No. 11/47 A, because of convenience of living in the same locality for such a long time. 11. This Court is aware of the settled position in law that concurrent findings of fact of Courts below in Rent Control matters ought not to be rightly interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse and against the material on record. No such perversity has been shown by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner for this Court to show its interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for some time to vacate the premises in question. 14. The release application was filed in 2013 by the landlady showing her genuine and bona fide need, and notice had been issued earlier in 2010 to the tenant to vacate the premises in question, he did not make any genuine effort to look for alternative accommodation and continued to enjoy premises in question for eight long years even after the issuance of notice. 15. This Court therefore does not find any good ground to give time to the tenant to vacate the premises as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. However, looking into the financial condition of the tenant-petitioner, three months' time is given to vacate the premises in question subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority that he shall pay rent every month as it falls due to the landlady and vacate the disputed premises within a period of three months. Such an undertaking shall be given within ten days from today.