JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. Smt. Imtiazi Begum, opposite party No. 3, is the landlady of house No. 204 Mohalla Kothi Atanas in the city of Meerut. Smt. Mahfoozan and her three sons, namely, Amir Hasan, Ibne Hasan and Iqbal Hasan, petitioners, are tenants of the ground floor of this building on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/. The first floor is in possession of the landlady. The latter moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the said Act for release of the ground floor on the allegations that she is a heart patient and the doctors have advised her to avoid the strain of going upstairs. 3. The application was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the landlady had no bona fide need for the dispute accommodation as she was living in Baragaon with her husband and certain tenants were occupying the first floor in this house. It was further alleged that she wanted to enhance rent and as they did not agree to it the application for release was moved. The landlady had moved a similar application in 1969 which was rejected on 28.10.1969. 4. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the landlady was not suffering from any ailment much less heart trouble and had no bona fide need for the ground floor The application was accordingly rejected. The landlady filed an appeal and the learned IV Additional District Judge, Meerut, came to the conclusion that there were X-Ray plates and prescriptions on the record which established that the landlady was suffering from serious ailment and was advised to avoid strain of going upstairs. Her need for the ground floor was held to be genuine and the appeal was allowed. The disputed building was released in favour of the landlady. It was further stated that the tenants may take advantage of the offer made by the landlady under which she agreed to give the first floor to the tenants on a rent of Rs. 25/- per month. They were required to give their consent for it by 26.7.1977. Hence this writ petition has been filed by the tenants. 5. I have looked into the entire record and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. 25/- per month. They were required to give their consent for it by 26.7.1977. Hence this writ petition has been filed by the tenants. 5. I have looked into the entire record and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The first question for consideration is whether the landlady has bona fide need for the ground floor. As observed by the learned District Judge, certain X-Ray plates and prescriptions were on the record which escaped the attention of the Prescribed Authority because they were kept in a separate box. These documents made it clear that the landlady was ill and she was advised not to go upstairs or come down. In the doctor's prescriptions several ailments and complications were mentioned. There is nothing on the record to show that these documents were not genuine or she was not suffering from any trouble. The tenants wanted to get rid of this evidence by showing that in 1969 also the landlady had moved an application for release but she did not give out in that application that she was suffering from any ailment. After perusal of the material on the record the learned District Judge observed that the landlady appears to have developed ailments from the year 1969. Even if implicit reliance is not placed on it, it is not improbable that till then the ailment was not so serious that she could have thought of seeking release on that ground. Subsequently when it became serious and she was advised to avoid strain she moved the application. In any case the learned District Judge has recorded a finding of tact on the basis of material on the record and there is no justification to disturb it in writ jurisdiction. 6. The learned District Judge has also held that there is no material on the record to show that the landlady is living with her husband in Baragaon and the first floor is let out to the tenants. Therefore, the conclusions reached by him on questions of fact cannot be disturbed at this stage. 7. As regards comparison of hardship, it may be stated that before the learned District Judge the landlady had made an offer on 12.5.1977 that she was prepared to let out the first floor to the tenants on the same rent. Therefore, the conclusions reached by him on questions of fact cannot be disturbed at this stage. 7. As regards comparison of hardship, it may be stated that before the learned District Judge the landlady had made an offer on 12.5.1977 that she was prepared to let out the first floor to the tenants on the same rent. Obviously it would have mitigated every hardship of the tenants and relieved the landlady also of her hardship. In these circumstances there can be no manner of doubt that the tenants would suffer no hardship if they shift to the first floor. If the application of the landlady is not allowed, she will not only suffer considerable hardship but her ailment may increase. In these circumstances the release application was rightly allowed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs on parties. It is still open to the petitioners to accept the offer of the landlady by the end of March, 1978.