JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Dehra Dun dated 7-12-1976. 2. The dispute relates to a portion of house no. 51-A Khurbura Mohalla, Dehradun. This house was purchased in 1958 by Anant Ram, respondent No. 2. He obtained the possession of a portion of this house in 1958, which consisted of two rooms, one kitchen and a latrine. These two rooms were of 26'-6' x 9' and 36'-6' x 10' in size. It is the admitted case of the parties that after some time Anant Ram got possession of another portion of this house which had been previously let out to one Chunni Lal. Anant Ram filed an application in the year 1970 under section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioner, who was occupying another portion of this house as a tenant. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. While rejecting the application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer observed :- "The owner is well advised to suggest some alternate accommodation to the O. P. first before pressing his "claim for permission under section 3 of the U.P. Act III of 1947. Similarly, the O.Ps. are also well advised to find out and try sincerely for the allotment of entitled to within a period of six months or some alternate accommodation in the town, as the need of the owner is certainly found to be genuine and he has a right of his property." It seems that on the enforcement of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, Anant Ram again filed an application under section 21 for the release of the portion in occupation of Ram Deo on the ground that he required the premises for occupation by himself and his family members. In the application, Anant Ram alleged that there were thirteen members in the family and the accommodation then available was too short to accommodate all the family members. The application was resisted by Ram Deo. He claimed that the need for the additional accommodation set up by the landlord was not bonafide inasmuch as the accommodation already with him was sufficient for his purposes. The tenant also disputed that there were thirteen members in the family of the respondent No. 2. 3. The application was resisted by Ram Deo. He claimed that the need for the additional accommodation set up by the landlord was not bonafide inasmuch as the accommodation already with him was sufficient for his purposes. The tenant also disputed that there were thirteen members in the family of the respondent No. 2. 3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer appointed a Commissioner to make the spot inspection and submit a report on 25-6-76 giving the details of the accommodation in possession of the landlord. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer thereafter having found that the need of the landlord was not genuine, rejected the application on 16-6-76. Against this order, the landlord preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was allowed by the impugned order. Hence this writ. 4. It would be noticed that the learned District Judge held that as the accommodation in possession of the landlord was insufficient, his need was genuine. According to the view of the learned District Judge, the landlord should have at least six living rooms, one guest room etc. In recording the finding about the genuineness of the need of the landlord, the learned District Judge also observed :- "The accommodation in their possession has been the same since 1958, while the family has more than doubled." 5. Challenging the observations quoted above, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that after 1958, the landlord succeeded in getting the possession of another portion of the said house, and learned District Judge lost sight of the said fact while deciding the appeal against the petitioner. Controverting the above argument of the learned counsel for petitioner, Sri H.S. Nigam, counsel for the respondent No. 2 Anant Ram, urged that although it was true that Anant Ram had succeeded in obtaining possession of another portion of the house and the learned District Judge made a mistake in not mentioning this in the judgment, but as the learned District Judge correctly described the accommodation available with the landlord the mistake pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner was of a trivial nature hence the judgment could not be set aside on that basis. It is true that the learned District Judge has described the accommodation in possession of the respondent no. 2 correctly, but I am unable to find that the landlord had the same accommodation in his possession since 1958. It is true that the learned District Judge has described the accommodation in possession of the respondent no. 2 correctly, but I am unable to find that the landlord had the same accommodation in his possession since 1958. If the fact that the landlord had the same accommodation in his possession since 1958, not been taken into account by the learned District Judge, he would not have still allowed the application filed by the landlord. It may also be noticed that while noting the total accommodation in possession of the landlord, the learned District Judge did not consider the size of the rooms which was also a very important matter. Accordingly it appears to me that the finding on the question of bonafide requirement of the premises by the landlord, is liable to be set aside, and the learned District Judge should be asked to reappraise the evidence and to decide the said question afresh. 6. The finding about hardship given by the learned District Judge also appears to be erroneous, while giving this finding he held that there was no dearth of houses in Dehradun and the petitioner could got one if he so desired. The learned District Judge has not made reference to the evidence brought on record on the basis of which the said finding was given. The learned counsel for the parties invited my attention to various materials filed alongwith the counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit for the purposes of establishing their respective cases Sri H.S. Nigam wanted to establish that the landlord had brought several accommodations to the notice of the tenant which could be occupied and taken on rent. To the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued on the basis of the notice filed along with the rejoinder- affidavit that he made all efforts to get an alternative accommodation but did not succeed in getting any. He also contended that the accommodations which were suggested to the petitioner were really not available and that the landlord had written those letters only for the purposes of creating evidence. All these matters are required to be gone into by the learned District Judge. He should not have given a finding about comparative need of the parties without looking into the evidence filed by the parties. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. All these matters are required to be gone into by the learned District Judge. He should not have given a finding about comparative need of the parties without looking into the evidence filed by the parties. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned District Judge dated 7-12-1976 is set aside, and the case is sent back to hint for deciding it afresh expressly. There will be no order as to costs.