JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - These three writ petitions arise out of a common judgment and order dated July 6, 1977, passed by District Judge, Kanpur, dismissing the three appeals Nos. 320, 307 and 313 of 1976 filed by Ishwari Prasad Bajpai, Tulsi Prasad and Chandra Prakash Dua respectively. 2. The relevant facts are these : Sardar Kartar Singh was the owner of house No. 118/572 Kaushalpuri, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as landlord). It had several accommodations. Out of these accommodations, three of them were let out to the aforesaid three persons. These three accommodations are as follows :- 1. Shop on the ground floor was let out to Chandra Prakash Dua on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- where he was doing radio business in the name of 'Perfect Radio Service'. 2. Another shop on the ground floor was in the tenancy of Tulsi Prasad on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. Tulsi Prasad was doing cycle repairing work. 3. The residential portion on the ground floor was let out to Ishwari Prasad for the purpose of his residence. It had two rooms, etc. The three applications were filed by Sardar Kartar Singh against the aforesaid three tenants under Section 21 of the U P. Urban Buildings (Regulation Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly stated as Act No. X111 of 1972) for the release of the three portions mentioned above. In the application filed under section 21 of the Act, Sardar Kartar Singh alleged that there were 19 members in his family. Out of them his two sons, namely, Amrik Singh and Har Charan Singh from his first wife were living separately in house No. 111/425, Ashok Naga:. His other son, namely, Devendra Singh was living in house No. 118/572 in two rooms. Rest of the family members including two servants were living with him on the first floor of house No. 118/572 Kaushalpuri (which is the house in dispute). The accommodation on the ground floor was insufficient to meet his requirements. His other son, namely, Devendra Singh was living in house No. 118/572 in two rooms. Rest of the family members including two servants were living with him on the first floor of house No. 118/572 Kaushalpuri (which is the house in dispute). The accommodation on the ground floor was insufficient to meet his requirements. It was further stated that the landlord and his wife were patients of high blood pressure and that the residential portion of the house in the occupation of Ishwari Prasad Bajpai was required by him for the purposes of his residence Dealing with the need for the shops in the occupation of Chandra Prakash Dua and Tulsi Prasad, Sardar Kartar Singh alleged that his one of the sons Dr. Mahendra Singh who had done M.B.B.S. and was doing House Job at the time of filing of the application, had no engagement and that he intended to set up private practice with a Nursing Home for which he would need one room as consulting room, one room for dispensary and two rooms for Nursing Home. It was alleged that the accommodation in his possession was insufficient and inadequate and that if the release application filed against Chandra Prakash Dua and Tulsi Prasad was allowed, Dr. Mahendra Singh could be provided with the accommodations needed by him for the purposes of his starting the medical practice. 3. The three applications were contested by the tenants mentioned above. Chandra Prakash Dua denied that the need of Sardar Kartar Singh the landlord was genuine and bona fide. He alleged that Dr. Mahendra Singh was a House Surgeon in the Lala Lajpat Rai 1 - Hospital and that he did not need the accommodation in his tenancy for the purpose of establishing himself. It was alleged that the application filed was mala fide as he had refused to enhance the rent demanded by Sardar Kartar Singh. He also pleaded that another shop situated in some premises had been let out by Sardar Kartar Singh to M/s. Chawla Cycle and Rickshaw Company and had Sardar Kartar Singh required the premises for settling his son, he would have not let it out. 4. Chandra Prakash Dua further contended that Sardar Kartar Singh had another house which was house No. 111/425, Ashok Nagar in the occupation of his son, namely Har Charan Singh. 4. Chandra Prakash Dua further contended that Sardar Kartar Singh had another house which was house No. 111/425, Ashok Nagar in the occupation of his son, namely Har Charan Singh. Har Charan Singh vacated a portion of this house and only a few months before filing of the application under section 21 of the Act, the same was let out to M/s. plywood Trading Corporation on a monthly rent of Rs. 375/- It was further blooded that if he was evicted, his sons would be thrown out from the engagement who were carrying on business in the premises in dispute. The other two tenants also contested the application filed by the landlord more or less on the same ground. Ishwari Prasad Bajpai denied that Miter Singh was a patient of high blood pressure and that he had been advised to live on the ground floor. It was asserted that he had no other alternative accommodation available with him and that he would suffer greater hardship if the application filed by the landlord was allowed. The landlord only filed a reply to the written statement of the tenant and asserted that house No. 111/496 was not under his control as the same had been given by him to his name Amrik Singh and Har Charan Singh. Amrik Singh and Har Charan Singh had let out a portion of the said house as mentioned in the written statement of the tenants to M/s. Plywood Trading Corporation and that the landlord could not get the same for starting the clinic by his son. 5. After examining the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application of Sardar Kartar Singh the landlord on 21 6.1976. Aggrieved, the three tenants preferred the three appeals before the District Judge. These appeals were decided by the impugned judgment on 6.7.1977. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, these three writ petitions were filed. The first argument made by the learned counsel in writ petition No. 1080 of 1977 was that the finding recorded by the courts below with respect to the portion of house No. 111/425 Ashok Nagar was illegal and erroneous. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, these three writ petitions were filed. The first argument made by the learned counsel in writ petition No. 1080 of 1977 was that the finding recorded by the courts below with respect to the portion of house No. 111/425 Ashok Nagar was illegal and erroneous. He urged that the said house belonged to the landlord and that the landlord was the owner of the house when it was let out to M/s. Plywood Trading Corporation, that he could obtain its possession and start the clinic for his son Dr. Mahendra Singh if any premises was really needs by the latter. In rebuttal, the landlord had filed an agreement before the Prescribed Authority dated September 28, 1964, showing that the property had been given by him to Amrik Singh and Har Charan Singh. A copy of the said agreement had been filed as Annexure R-1. 7. I have gone through this document and I am unable to find that the interpretation placed by the District Judge as well as the Prescribed Authority on it was incorrect Under it Amrik Singh and liar Charan Singh was given the full control and management of the house and that they were further entitled to realise rent from it in case they desired to let it out. It is true that under the document Har Charan Singh and Amrik Singh were not given the right to sell, transfer or dispose of the property and were further asked to deposit the Corporation Tax in the name of Sardar Kartar Singh the landlord, but that does not effect the interpretation pleaded by the courts below. In the instant case what was necessary to be found was whether Sardar Kartar Singh had any control over its management. The answer to this enquiry should be in the negative. The management had been entrusted completely to the hands of the two sons mentioned above. Full freedom was given to them to realise the rent and to appropriate the same for their needs. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the District Judge committed any error in holding that the portion of the house let out to M/s. Plywood Trading Corporation was not available to the landlord. Full freedom was given to them to realise the rent and to appropriate the same for their needs. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the District Judge committed any error in holding that the portion of the house let out to M/s. Plywood Trading Corporation was not available to the landlord. It is worthy to note that although the tenants challenged the aforesaid document to he sham and fictitious before the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed authority repelled the said plea, but no attempt was made by these tenants to challenge its validity on the aforesaid ground in the of heal. The learned counsel of the three petitions could not point out that its validity had been challenged on the grounds mentioned above before the District Judge and that the same was not decided. The fact that the agreement dated September 23, 1964, was executed by the landlord cannot, therefore, be denied. 8. It may be pointed out that the question relating to the letting out of a portion of house No. 111/425 Ashok Nagar was raised by the tenant for a limited purposes of showing that the need of the landlord was not genuine, inasmuch as had it been genuine, the landlord would not have let out the same to M/s. Plywood Trading Corporation. In a proceeding under Section 21 of the Act such a plea is always available to a tenant. A tenant is fully justified in demonstrating that the application filed was not bona fide. In the instant case, however, it is found that he failed in bringing home the point I, therefore, find that the learned District Judge correctly held that Sardar Kartar Singh the landlord had no concern with house No. 111/425. 9. The second question urged by the learned counsel was that the need of the landlord was not genuine. As would be found from the facts stated above, the needs set up by the landlord can be divided into two parts, namely one for the shops in the occupation of Chandra Prakash Dua and Tulsi Prasad and the Tulsi Prasad and the second for residential portion in the occupation of Ishwari Prasad Bajpai. So far as the shops are concerned, the same so required by the landlord for the purpose of his son Dr. Mahendra Singh. It has been found by the District Judge that Dr. So far as the shops are concerned, the same so required by the landlord for the purpose of his son Dr. Mahendra Singh. It has been found by the District Judge that Dr. Mahendra Singh had to establish himself in private medical practice and that for want of space he had not been able to do so despite the fact that he done his M.B.B.S. long time back. It has further been found that the landlord had no other place available to him where he could start a clinic and a Nursing Home for his son. The aforesaid finding is finding of fact. 10. The learned counsel thereafter urged that Chandra Prakash Dua would suffer greater hardship in case the application tiled by the landlord was allowed then that which would be suffered by the landlord by the rejection of the application. The whole process of weighing the hardship is a difficult one. Various factors would have to be thrown into the scale and the Court has to, examine how each factor tilts the balance on either side. Thereafter it has to find out the balance of hardship. It is only when greater hardship is on the side of the tenant that the application filed by the landlord would be rejected. In the instant case both the authorities after considering and looking into the entire evidence held that Dr. Mahendra Singh son of the landlord was unemployed and had no source of income. He needed the accommodation in the occupation of Chandra Prakasb Dua and Tulsi Prasad for the purposes of settling himself. These circumstances coupled with the fact that Chandra Prakash Dua had alternative accommodation available to him would demonstrate that the landlord would have suffered greater hardship in case the application filed by him was rejected. 11. As stated above, Sri Faujdar Rai, counsel appearing for Tulsi Prasad in writ petition No. 1076 adopted the same argument which was made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 1080 of 1977. In addition he argued that Tulsi Prasad was a small business man and that he did not have any alternative accommodation available to him where he could shift his business. It may be true that an alternative accommodation was not available to Tulsi Prasad at the time when the application was decided against him by the Prescribed Authority. In addition he argued that Tulsi Prasad was a small business man and that he did not have any alternative accommodation available to him where he could shift his business. It may be true that an alternative accommodation was not available to Tulsi Prasad at the time when the application was decided against him by the Prescribed Authority. But as observed by the learned District Judge, he could succeed in getting an accommodation for himself. 12. Coining to the third writ Petition No. 1079 of 1977 filed by Ishwari Prasad Bajpai it may be stated that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge was that the landlord suffered from high blood pressure and that under the medical advice he had avoid using stairs. He was 72 years of age. His request, therefore the release of the ground floor could not be said to be mala fide. So far as the question of comparing the need of Ishwari Prasad Bajpai with that of the landlord is concerned, it may be suffice to mention thereafter comparison the learned District Judge found that hardship which would be caused to the landlord would be greater by the rejection of the application than that which might be suffered by the tenant by its acceptance. The question of consideration of hardship is really a question of fact. 13. The distinction between law and fact has been lucidly pointed out by Block in his law dictionary 1951 edition on page 706 which is as under : "Law is a principle ; fact is an event. Law is conceived ; fact is actual. Law is a rule of duty ; fact is that which has been according to of in contravention of the rule........." It is the settled law that this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction has no jurisdiction to correct an error of fact. The finding recorded on a question of fact is binding unless it can be shown that it is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It is equally established that the High Court cannot re- appraise the evidence or see if the inference drawn from a piece of evidence is wrong. This is to be done by a court of appeal. 14. It is equally established that the High Court cannot re- appraise the evidence or see if the inference drawn from a piece of evidence is wrong. This is to be done by a court of appeal. 14. Dealing with the question of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and another v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 398, held : "In the judgments and orders impugned in these appeals, the High Court has exercised its supervisory jurisdiction in respect of errors which cannot be said to be errors of law apparent on the face of the record. If at all, they are errors, they are errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, errors in drawing inference of omission to draw inferences. In other words, those are errors which a court sitting as a court of appeal only, could have examined and, if necessary, corrected". This decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Bablrutmal v. Laxmibai, A.I.R. 1975, Supreme Court, page 1297. 15. In the result, the three writ petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. The three petitioners are granted three months' time to vacate their respective premises.