Girish Prasad Mathur, J. - (1.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have examined the record. The finding of both the authorities below is that the need of the landlord is bona fide. The authorities have further found that petitioner No. 2 Sunil Kumar Arora is carrying on business in another shop in Tara Chand Market and that the petitioners had one shop in their possession near Roadways Bus Station which they vacated in February, 1991. The authorities have thus found that the landlord will suffer greater hardship in the event of refusal of the release application than the hardship which will be suffered by the tenant in the event of grant of release application. The findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship are findings of fact which cannot be interfered in the present writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed summarily. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute. I have also heard Shri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents on this point. I accordingly, direct that the petitioners will not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 30 -4 -1983 provided they file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a month from today undertaking to peacefully vacate the premises in dispute and hand over vacant possession of the same to the Respondent No. 3. The petitioners will not permit any other person to occupy the premises. The petitioners will further deposit the entire upto -date rent and rent upto 31 -7 -1992 by 31 -5 -1992, rent upto 31 -10 -1992, by 31 -8 -1992, rent upto 31 -1 -1993 by 30 -11 -1992 and rent upto 30 -4 -1993 by 28 -2 -1993. In case of default of any one of the conditions imposed above, the Respondent No. 3 will be entitled to take possession of the premises in dispute in accordance with law.;