Anjani Kumar, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-tenant challenges the order dated 18th July, 2003, passed by the appellate authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the order dated 19th February, 2001, passed by the prescribed authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the prescribed authority allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of thefiled by the respondents-landlord.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondents-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of thefor the release of the accommodation in question, which is a shop, on the ground that the accommodation is bona fide required by the landlord in order to settle his elder son Samiuddin, who is at present doing nothing. It is further stated in the application that Samiuddin was carrying on a business, which has to close down because of the heavy losses and he wants to start a fresh business of glass bangles and the youngest son, who has passed B. Com examination and could not get any job and there is no chance of any Government Job. Both the sons will start a new business to be settled in case the shop in question is released in favour of the landlord. The further assertion is that because of no employment or business, Samiuddin, who is already married and has two children and a wife, they are in mental tension and the marriage of the youngest son could not be settled down because of the lack of any engagement. The petitioner-tenant denied the aforesaid allegations made in the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of theby the landlord and raised objection that in fact the landlord does not require the shop in question and further that the statement in the application that the landlord does not possess any other property in vacant condition is totally incorrect. In fact the landlord has several properties and many of them are in vacant condition, where he can settle down his sons. It is further submitted that many properties belong to the landlord have been let out by the landlord and the landlord can get any property vacated and settle his sons over there. It was therefore submitted by the tenant that the need of the landlord is not bona fide. It is again submitted that in fact the sons of the landlord do not have any interest in carrying on any business and they do not have any experience also. They in fact want to act in Films. On the comparative hardship, the petitioner-tenant has also submitted that he has no other building or accommodation where he can shift his business, which he is carrying on for past 40 years and he is not able to get any other job, therefore the application filed by the respondent-landlord is mala fide and liable to be rejected.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties before the prescribed authority, the parties have adduced their evidence. The prescribed authority after considering the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide in view of the law laid down by this Court that the need for settling his son is bona fide need. The mala fide alleged by the tenant has not been established. So far as the question of comparative hardship is concerned, the prescribed authority after considering the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the tilt of the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority therefore vide order dated 19th February, 2001 allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of thefiled by the landlord and directed the release of the shop in question in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-tenant preferred an appeal under Section 22 of thebefore the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the relevant arguments and evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the prescribed authority with regard to the bona fide need and the comparative hardship do not warrant any interference and while dismissing the appeal filed by the tenant affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant submitted before me that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are perverse, but nothing could be demonstrated as to how the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are perverse. It is settled view of laws that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, as the Apex Court has held in the case in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash : (2004) 3 SCC 682 [LQ/SC/2004/387 ;] ">(2004) 3 SCC 682 [LQ/SC/2004/387 ;] [LQ/SC/2004/387 ;] : 2004 (2) AWC 1721 (SC) . In this view of the matter, I find no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that since the tenant is carrying on his business from the shop in question, he may be given some time to vacate and handover the same to the landlord. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of Justice, I direct that the order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant shall not be executed till 31st December, 2005 provided :

(i) the petitioner-tenant shall furnish an undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of one month from today to the effect that he will deposit the entire rent/damages at the rate of rent till date, if not already deposited or paid to the landlord and continue to deposit the same as and when the same falls due by the first week of each succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till 31st December, 2005, whichever is earlier ; and

(ii) the petitioner-tenant shall vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the shop in question on or before 31st December, 2005, to the landlord ;

(iii) in the event of default of any of the conditions mentioned above, it will be open to the landlord to get the order of eviction executed.

6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.