JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of the District Judge, Almora, dated 10th April, 1978 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The dispute relates to a portion of a three storeyed building, situate on the Mall Road, Almora. The First and the second floors were in occupation of the landlord and were being used as his residence. The ground floor consisting of a big room had been let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ 3. In 1976, when the landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, the premises was being used as Sale Depot by the petitioner. In the application the landlord alleged that the same was required by him for starting a business. He claimed that he had a big family consisting of himself, his wife and six children, and he had no source of income. He alleged that he had only 8,000/- with him, which was collected by disposing of his property. The landlord contended that if he was not allowed to occupy the accommodation in question, his children will starve in the absence of any business. He also alleged that the tenant had damaged the premises let out to it. 4. The application was contested by the petitioner. The petitioner refuted the allegations of the landlord and asserted that it was a cooperative society, carrying on the business of storing, selling the milk after purchasing from villagers, and also processing milk so as to converts it into butter, cream, ghee and other milk products. The petitioner claimed that it had no alternative accommodation available to it, and it would suffer irreparably in case the petitioner was evicted. It was also asserted that the consumers and customers of the petitioner would be put to great hardship if the petitioner was made to vacate the premises. 5. Before the Prescribed Authority, both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. After appraisal of the evidence, the Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was bonafide. It also found that as the petitioner had an alternative accommodation available to it, the petitioner was not likely to suffer any hardship. On these findings, the Prescribed Authority granted the release application filed by respondent 3. On appeal, the findings of the Prescribed Authority were affirmed. It also found that as the petitioner had an alternative accommodation available to it, the petitioner was not likely to suffer any hardship. On these findings, the Prescribed Authority granted the release application filed by respondent 3. On appeal, the findings of the Prescribed Authority were affirmed. The appellate authority, however, modified the finding given by Prescribed Authority on the question of alternative accommodation. It held that even if the petitioner was made to vacate the accommodation in Ranjana Hotel building, which had been treated as alternative accommodation by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner could shift its Sale Depot and office to the building which had been constructed at Patal Devi. It had been found by the appellate authority Patal Devi building had a lot of accommodation for office, storing, and processing and manufacturing machines of the milk and its products. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgments, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7. Two points were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first was that the finding given on the question of bonafide requirement was incorrect. I am unable to find any substance in this submission. Nothing could be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the finding was illegal. The courts below concurrently found that the landlord had only Rs. 8,000/- with him, and he had neither any source of income for any business to earn the livelihood of the family. That being so, the need of the landlord was honest and bonafide, and that the filing of the application was not prompted by any onlique motive. The courts below rightly held that the landlord bonafide required the premises. 8. Next comes the question of comparative hardship. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an application had been filed against it by the owner of the Ranjana Hotel also. The Prescribed Authority committed an error in treating the same as an alternative accommodation. It appears that the Prescribed Authority had found that since the petitioner had in its possession a building known as Ranjana Hotel, the petitioner was not likely to suffer any hardship. 9. It is admitted case of the parties that the landlord of the Ranjana Hotel had also filed an application against the petitioner under section 21 of the Act. It appears that the Prescribed Authority had found that since the petitioner had in its possession a building known as Ranjana Hotel, the petitioner was not likely to suffer any hardship. 9. It is admitted case of the parties that the landlord of the Ranjana Hotel had also filed an application against the petitioner under section 21 of the Act. As narrated above, the appellate authority found that the petitioner had a big accommodation available to it at Patal Devi. This building had been constructed by the petitioner itself and this was big enough to accommodate the entire office, storing, processing and manufacturing machines of milk and milk products, as well as the Sale Depot. As the petitioner had an alternative accommodation available to it, it would not suffer any hardship. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the building at Patal Devi was situate at a distance of 3 Kilometers from the premises in dispute, and, as such, the question of hardship could be decided in favour of the petitioner. A distance of 3 kilometers from the place which was accessible by motor-road could not be said to be a distance which disentitled the landlord from getting the release in his favour. It may be pointed out that availability of an alternative accommodation to a tenant is a relevant consideration, and though the question of availability of an alternative accommodation is normally an important circumstance to be considered, but there is no rule that the order of dispossession of a tenant cannot be made unless the other accommodation is equal in size and is equally luxurious as was available to the tenant. A release order can be made in favour of a landlord even if a tenant is not possessed of an alternative accommodation, if the circumstances of a case justify making of such an order. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs payable by the petitioner to Respondent No. 3. The stay order is discharged.