JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This is a tenant petition filed against the order passed on the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, filed by the landlord for release of the accommodation in question. Prescribed authority allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal against this order. During the pendency of the appeal, the son of the landlord died but this did not change the original need of the landlord, his wife and daughter as set up earlier. In my opinion, this did not alter the bona fide need of the landlord. However, landlord preferred an application for amendment that he has created a trust in the memory of his son and the need may now be considered in the light of new fact. This application has been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that this evidence can be accepted and considered during the time the appeal is finally heard. The appellate authority in its findings affirmed the need of the landlord. The appellate authority also affirmed the comparative hardship which tilts in favour of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that landlord in the form of affidavit has adduced evidence that two rooms are required to set up library and office for the trust, which he has established in the memory of his son, therefore, this need is not of the landlord but the need of the trust which can be taken into account. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the amendment application filed by the landlord was already rejected.
2. In my opinion, no new need has been set up. It is only the question of evidence that has been adduced and no new additional evidence has- been adduced. The appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the findings are concurrent findings of fact.
3. In the concurrent findings recorded by the prescribed authority as well as of appellate authority, this Court will interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when there is either any error of law or perverse findings.
4. In this view of the matter, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some reasonable time may be granted so that tenant may make alternative accommodation. The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for six month's time to vacate and handover the peaceful possession of accommodation in dispute is accepted. The order of the prescribed authority as confirmed by the appellate authority shall not be given effect to till 13th November, 2002, if :
(1) Petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the prescribed authority within a month from today to the effect that petitioner will vacate the premises in question and handover the vacant peaceful possession to the landlord on or before the 13th November, 2002 ; and (2) Petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of rent and damages, if any, at the rate of rent within one month from today and keeps on depositing the damages calculated equivalent to the rent till the petitioner continues in the possession or till 13th November, 2002, whichever is earlier. The landlord shall be entitled to withdraw the aforesaid amount.
6. In the event of default the order of eviction will be open for execution.