JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has tediously taken this Court through the history of the house in question and its ownership by Smt. Satya Bagga and thereafter by Sri Sachdeva and the purchase of the house in question by the father of the respondents on 24.2.1979, when the petitioner was sitting tenant therein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the petitioner on 8.3.2003. When the petitioner replied to the same, the said notice was apparently abandoned and a release application was moved on 7.11.2012 under Section 21(1)(a) showing bona fide need, but the property in question was not accurately described. The petitioner filed a written statement on 7.4.2013 saying that the rent control case was not maintainable, as no notice for vacating the premises on bona fide need/requirement of the landlord was ever given to the tenant. The landlord has actually 5 rooms on the first floor and one big hall on the ground floor. Thereafter, an amendment application for amending the plaint was moved which was allowed by the learned Trial Court. 3. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application on 12.9.2016, without considering the grievance of the petitioner both regarding non maintainability of the release application due to lack of giving notice prior to filing such release application and also not considering the comparative hardship of the tenant. The Prescribed Authority directed that the petitioner be evicted from the tenanted premises within 30 days of the order. 4. The learned Court for the petitioner has further submitted that being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.9.2016, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 348 of 2016 (Dr. L.D. Arora v. Vineet Kumar & others) wherein initially the District Judge, Meerut granted an interim stay of operation of the impugned order on 15.9.2016, but thereafter by the judgment and order dated 20.1.2018, he has rejected the Appeal without considering the material evidence placed by the petitioner before it. 5. Sri Kiran Kumar Arora, who appears for the respondents has pointed out from the order dated 12.9.2016 that the Prescribed Authority has sufficiently dealt with the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the release application at internal page No. 5, 6 & 7 of the impugned order. 6. 5. Sri Kiran Kumar Arora, who appears for the respondents has pointed out from the order dated 12.9.2016 that the Prescribed Authority has sufficiently dealt with the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the release application at internal page No. 5, 6 & 7 of the impugned order. 6. He has read out relevant passages of the order dated 12.9.2016 wherein on the basis of documentary evidence as well as the written statement of the tenant, the learned Court below has found that initially a notice dated 4.11.2003 was issued by the landlord to the tenant through his counsel, Sri Mahesh Chand Kushwaha. This notice was replied by Shyam Lal Chhabra, Advocate on behalf of the tenant. The first notice related to default in rent. The second notice was issued by Sri Praveen Mittal, Advocate on behalf of the landlord on 9.4.2007 in which the bona fide need of the landlord was shown relating to one Amit Kumar. This second notice was replied by Sri Harshvardhan Jha, Advocate on behalf of the tenant. Therefore, the preliminary objections made by the tenant regarding the maintainability of the release application has been sufficiently dealt with by the learned Court below and a finding has been returned regarding maintainability of the same which suffers from no factual or legal infirmity for this Court to show its interference. 7. With regard to the bona fide need also, Sri K.K. Arora has taken this Court through various passages of the impugned order dated 12.9.2016, that the landlord's family is a big family which has six adult members and two children, and they have only three small rooms, one kitchen, one toilet and bathroom and since they are enjoying a very good status in the society and they need bigger accommodation to sufficiently discharge their several responsibilities. 8. The learned Court below found that the tenant had two sons and one daughter. One son and one daughter were settled elsewhere and also that his younger son who was said to be living with his family in the tenanted premises, but on evidence being led to the contrary was found living in a flat constructed by Super-tech builders. Moreover, in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court the contention of the landlord that the tenant was not even residing in the premises in question has been found to correct. Moreover, in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court the contention of the landlord that the tenant was not even residing in the premises in question has been found to correct. At internal page 12 of the Appellate's Court order, there is a finding recorded with regard to electricity bill of the tenanted premises, which showed that no electricity was actually consumed, which only buttresses the submission made by the landlord that had the petitioner been living in the tenanted premises, he would certainly have consumed electricity and electricity bill would have been generated. 9. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the concurrent finding of facts recorded by two learned Courts below, this Court does not find any good ground to show any interference in this petition at this stage. Considering also the fact that this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution have very limited jurisdiction. 10. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage has prayed that the petitioner be given six months time to vacate the premises. This Court does not find any reason to accept the said prayer made by the petitioner. The petitioner is diverted to vacate premises within one month from today.