JUDGMENT Varma, J. - The dispute in this petition relates to house No. 90/A, Abott Road, Lucknow. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the said accommodation since 1928. Opposite Party No. 3 moved an application under Section 21 of Act, XIII of 1972, for the release of the said accommodation in his favour and for the ejectment of the tenant. The case of the landlord is that the accommodation in dispute was allotted to him in a family partition and that the petitioner was a tenant of the said accommodation at a monthly rent of Rs. 17.50. The case of opposite party No. 3 is that he was living in the house of his sister's son and since the relation is between him and his nephew were strained he had to shift temporarily to the house of his friends. It was submitted on behalf of the landlord that his need for the accommodation in dispute is bonafide. 2. The application for release was challenged by the tenant on a number of grounds. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was bonafide and his requirement in respect of the accommodation in dispute was genuine. The application for release was, accordingly allowed. Against the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. He preferred a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court. The petition was allowed and the case was remanded to the District Judge, Lucknow to decide it after comparing the needs of the landlord and the tenant and in the light of the provisions of U.P. Act, XXVIII of 1976. The learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow by order dated 10.1.1978 after considering the respective needs of the landlord and the tenant dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, referred to above, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, it appears that there are six members in the family of the landlord and there are 16 members in the family of the tenant. It also appears that the family of the tenant is in affluent circumstances and most of the members of the family are earning members. 4. It also appears that the family of the tenant is in affluent circumstances and most of the members of the family are earning members. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower appellate Court has not considered the likely hardship caused to the petitioner if he is evicted, along with 15 other members of his family who are living with him as compared to the likely hardship caused to the landlord in case the application for release is not allowed. Reliance was placed on Mahabir Prasad v. Distt. Judge, (1977 (UP) RCC 581). By reference to this decision it was submitted that even though the petitioner's family may be in affluent circumstances but that is a relevant consideration only when the houses are easily available at a reasonable rent, there is nothing on record to indicate that accommodation is available to the petitioner and his family on a reasonable rent. If there is scarcity of accommodation the mere fact that the tenant will get priority in matters of allotment is a matter of no consequence. In my opinion reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision referred to above is misplaced. In the said case there was a dispute between a landlord who has some accommodation of his own in his possession and his tenant. He had prayed for release of more accommodation in his favour, While determining the need of the landlord and the tenant, the learned Judge rightly observed that when accommodation was not easily available the means of the tenant would not be a material consideration and on that basis the learned Judge held that the application for the release of the accommodation by the owner, who was already in possession of a portion of the house belonging to him, was not a bonafide application. The facts of the instant case are entirely different. There is evidence available in this case that respondent No. 3 is not living in any accommodation which belongs to him. He is living with a friend of his who has permitted him to occupy a portion of his house as a temporary measure. In this state of affairs no assistance can be derived by the petitioner from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision in Mahabir Prasad v. District Judge (Supra). 5. He is living with a friend of his who has permitted him to occupy a portion of his house as a temporary measure. In this state of affairs no assistance can be derived by the petitioner from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decision in Mahabir Prasad v. District Judge (Supra). 5. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 relied upon Ram Swaroon v. Bhani Sam (1977) All Ren Cas 269). By reference to this decision the learned counsel argued that in the said case the tenant and his sons were carrying on a business and the grandson was employed in medical store. The learned Judge relied on an affidavit filed by the landlord that the tenant was in affluent circumstances, was carrying on business and there were three earning members of the family. The finding recorded in the case was that the family of the tenant was financially well off and was in a position to take a suitable accommodation on rent. The learned Judge on the sai material held that the authorities below have rightly come to a finding that the landlord will be put to a greater hardship if his application for release was not allowed as compared to the tenant whose financial position stood on a sound basis. In Murli Manohar Chandra v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, (1978 All Rent Cases 168), the learned Judge held that in comparing the need of the landlord and the tenant the affluent circumstances of the tenant can properly be taken into consideration in deciding the application under Section 21 of U.P. Act, XII of 1972. As between the landlord and the tenant it is the latter who should be required to hire another accommodation rather than compel the landlord to leave his own house tenanted and himself hire another accommodation at a higher rent. The learned Judge further remarked that the tenant may suffer hardship if head is required to vacate the accommodation but his hardship will not be so much as that of the landlord by hiring another accommodation when he happens to be owner of the same. The learned Judge further remarked that the tenant may suffer hardship if head is required to vacate the accommodation but his hardship will not be so much as that of the landlord by hiring another accommodation when he happens to be owner of the same. In my opinion the learned District Judge was right in holding that the need of the landlord is more genuine on the ground that he ha no house to live in whereas the tenants who are in affluent circumstances are in a position to have a suitable accommodation on a higher rent. In my opinion the decision given by the learned District Judge is correct and the order passed by him does not suffer from any error of law. 6. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. there will be no order as to costs. 7. In view of the scarcity of accommodation in the city of Lucknow, I direct that the order of ejectment shall not be executed for a period of six months. The learned counsel for the landlord has made a statement on behalf of his client that his client will not execute the order of ejectment for a period of six moths. It is, however clarified that during this period of six months, the tenant will pay the rent of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord at the stipulated rate and in case of any default, it will be open to the landlord to execute the order of ejectment.