JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition against the appellate order of the District Judge by which he reversing the order of the Prescribed Authority, allowed the landlady's application under Section 21, Act No. XIII of 1972. The two petitioners are petty tenants of one room each is a rickety building each paying Rs. 5/- per month rent. The landlady had acquired the house on 14-3-72 by purchase. Her case in the application under Section 21 was that she was very much short of space for the seventeen members of her family in the present house occupied by her in which she was only a co-sharer and that she needed the disputed premises for the residence of the members of her family after reconstruction. 2. The petitioners denied these allegations. The Prescribed Authority held that the premises were not dilapidated, although the landlady had financial capacity for reconstructing the same. It further believed the petitioners stand that the present accommodation of the landlady on the first floor of house no. 429 and a house of the landlady under construction close to the disputed premises were sufficient for the purpose of the members of her family and consequently recorded the finding that the landlady had failed to probe bona fide need for the disputed premises. It also recorded the finding that the petitioners if evicted, would have no roof on their heads and therefore the test of comparative hardship was also in their favour. The Learned Additional District Judge in appeal has recorded a very brief and cursory order. After observing that the landlady had moved the application under Section 21, Act XIII of 1972 and therefore, rule 17 was not applicable learned Judge proceeded to lay down that if the landlady showed proof of sufficient means for reconstruction only the comparative need of the parties was to be examined in accordance with rule 16. Thereafter, observing that the seventeen members of the landlady's family were living on the first floor in two rooms while the tenants were living along in the premises in their occupation, the learned Additional District Judge jumped to the conclusion "thus it is evident that the accommodation at the disposal of the landlady inadequate, therefore, her need is clearly more genuine and pressing than that of the tenants". 3. The appellate authority had clearly misdirected itself. 3. The appellate authority had clearly misdirected itself. In the first place it has failed to consider the question of bona fide requirement of the landlady properly in the light of the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. Thus it has not even touched the point that the landlady had another house under construction near the disputed premises. Without considering this, the finding about absence of bona fide need could not be reversed because the Prescribed Authority had specifically found that after completion of the house under construction she would have sufficient accommodation in her possession. Secondly, the mere facts that the landlady has bona fide need and the accommodation in her possession is grossly inadequate and her family has 17 members while both the tenants live all alone cannot suffice for holding that the comparative hardship test is in the landlady's favour. Other relevant considerations necessarily enter into the picture like status and resources of the parties and prospects of alternative arrangements for accommodation. No attention was paid to these and the matter found as concluded by gross inadequacy of landlady's part of accommodation and absence of tenants' family members. It may be added that from the affidavits filed in the proceedings it appears that one of the tenants is not living all alone but has his family consisting of his wife and his two children with him. In these circumstances the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by a manifest error apparent on the face of record. 4. In the result the petition is allowed. The order dated 8.7.78 of the Addl. District Judge is quashed and the learned District Judge is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above The parties shall bear own cost of the writ petition.