JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition filed against a judgment of the IInd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dated 17.9.1975. 2. The dispute in writ petition is with regard to a house situated at Saharanpur. Ram Lal, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 against the petitioner for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from house No. 398. Mohalla Ganoon Goyan, Roorkee on the allegations, inter alia, that he was the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute and that he required it for his personal need. 3. On 29th March, 1965 the permission was granted under Section 3. Lahri Singh, the petitioner went in revision. On 28th October, 1965 the revision was allowed and the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was set aside. The petitioner filed a representation under Section 7. The representation was accepted and the case was sent back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh decision. During the pendency of the application, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force. Consequently the application under Section 3 of the Act was covered into an application under Section 21 of the New Act and was further transferred to the Prescribed Authority. 4. By his order dated 16th October, 1976 the Prescribed Authority rejected the application. Against the said order respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal. In Appeal the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was set aside and prayer for eviction of the petitioner was granted. Hence the revision. 5. The first question that arises is about the bonafide requirement of the premises by the landlord. The appellate authority found that respondent No. 2 was residing in a tenanted house and the area of the tenanted house was bigger than that of the house in dispute. It, however, held that respondent No. 2 had a big family and that he was required to use the bathroom outside the house which was causing great inconvenience to him and other members of the family. Similarly the appellate authority further found that the landlord had to share the latrine and the terrace with other tenants. On these findings the appellate authority held that the need of the landlord was bonafide. 6. Similarly the appellate authority further found that the landlord had to share the latrine and the terrace with other tenants. On these findings the appellate authority held that the need of the landlord was bonafide. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act the requirement was that landlord needed the premises for occupation by himself and as the landlord had failed to establish any requirement or need, the application was liable to be rejected. The submission made is not tenable. It has been found by the appellate authority that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was highly inconvenient and was not suitable for his requirements. This established that the premises was required by the landlord. It was not a case where the application had been granted only for the purpose of putting the landlord to a more comfortable position. The appellate authority found that the landlord needed the premises and to my mind the said finding cannot be said to be erroneous. 7. The next question arises is about the hardship. The appellate authority held that the petitioner would not face any hardship if the premises in occupation of respondent No. 2 was allotted to him. I also find that as the accommodation in the tenancy of the landlord was same as that in that the disputed one, the petitioner could not suffer any hardship if he succeeds in getting possession of the house at present in possession of the landlord. On the facts, however, it appears necessary to make it clear that the petitioner would be liable to vacate the house only if the premises in occupation of respondent No. 2 was allotted to the petitioner. If the petitioner is unable to get the house of respondent No. 2, the application for release made by the said respondent would be liable to be dismissed. 8. Subject to the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioner is directed to make an application for allotment of the house in possession of the landlord within a period of one month from today.