JUDGMENT : A.N. VARMA, J. 1. This is a tenant's petition directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below allowing an application filed by Respondent No. 1, the landlord of the premises, of which the Petitioner was his tenant, u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. The relevant facts are these. The landlord filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the premises in question which consisted of two rooms, a closed verandah, a sahan and a bath room etc., The accommodation in dispute is part of a building No. 4/219 situate in Bomenji Road Saharanpur, in the remaining portion of which the landlady herself is residing with her family. The application was filed on the allegation that the landlord's family consists of 23 members. Some of the members of the family have been married since the letting out of the accommodation to the tenant Others have to be married shortly. Two of the members have been married in February and December, 1976. Besides the husband of the landlady was a patient of heart and has been advised to reside in some ground floor accommodation. These various circumstances have made it necessary for the landlady's family to have additional accommodation. The need of the landlady was genuine and pressing and in comparison to the tenant, the landlord would suffer greater hardship. 3. The application was contested by the Petitioner, who denied that the landlady bonafide required the accommodation in dispute. The tenant asserted that the landlady had several other properties which could satisfy her needs, if any. As for himself, the tenant asserted that he would suffer irreparable loss and hardship if he were evicted from the accommodation in dispute. 4. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application holding that the need of the landlady was genuine and was more pressing than that of the tenant. Against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority the Petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Saharanpur by the order dated August 20 1979 It may be mentioned at this stage that the application of the landlady was earlier dismissed. Thereupon, the landlady had filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge. Thereupon, the landlady had filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge. The case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the parties should be permitted to file affidavits and the Prescribed Authority might also get a local inspection made as regards the accommodation, which the parties might be having in their possession In pursuance of the direction and upon remand of the case, a Commissioner was appointed to examine various properties which the tenant alleged were possessed by the landlady and were available for occupation. The parties also filed some affidavits on that aspect of the matter. The Prescribed Authority, as stated above considered the entire material and came to the conclusion that none of the several properties pointed out by the tenant, was really available for the residence of the landlady and the members of her family. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised a number of points for my consideration which I shall deal with in seriatim. 6. His first contention was that the tenant had pointed out a number of accommodations owned by the landlady as providing suitable residence for the needs of the landlady and the members of her family. The said additional properties have not been considered by the courts below. I find no substance in this point. The Prescribed Authority has referred in detail to the various properties pointed out by the tenant with reference to their members the accommodation available in these properties as well as whether are they available for occupation by the landlady and the members of her family. The Prescribed Authority has upon an elaborate consideration of the material including the affidavits filed by the parties, came to the conclusion that none of these properties was vacant or available and that each one of them was being used by the tenants of the landlady for business purposes. The Prescribed Authority has held that these properties are, besides, unfit for being used for residential purposes. 7. As regards the accommodation No. 13/1000/1 pointed out by the tenant, the Prescribed Authority has observed that prior to the making of the present application u/s 21 of the Act, the said property had been vacated by its previous tenant and was thereupon occupied by the landlady for being used as a godown. 7. As regards the accommodation No. 13/1000/1 pointed out by the tenant, the Prescribed Authority has observed that prior to the making of the present application u/s 21 of the Act, the said property had been vacated by its previous tenant and was thereupon occupied by the landlady for being used as a godown. The Prescribed Authority, therefore arrived at a very definite conclusion that none of the properties pointed out by the Petitioner was really available for the residence of the landlady and the members of her family. The appellate court has endorsed the findings of the trial court on the above aspect of the matter. 8. Counsel for the Petitioner next submitted that the appellate court has not applied its mind to the various issues involved in the case as regards whether the additional properties pointed out by the tenant were available for the landlady or not. I do not agree. The Prescribed Authority dealt with the matter in considerable detail. The appellate court concurred with the conclusions of the Prescribed Authority. It was not necessary for the appellate court to repeat the reasoning adopted by the trial court. There is no reason to think that the appellate court did not independently apply its mind to the problem. 9. Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that the courts below have not adverted to the Commissioner's report. I find no substance in this objection. The courts below have dealt with every single property pointed out by the tenant as available to the landlady. They have dealt with the issue at some length. Learned Counsel was entirely unable to point out what is it in the report of the Commissioner which has escaped the notice of courts below. The mere omission, therefore, to refer specifically to the report of the Commissioner does not vitiate the order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner next submitted that the courts below have erred in law in not taking into consideration that property of the landlord which had been vacated by Ram Chandra prior to the making of the present application and which the landlady had herself occupied, and is stated to have been using as a godown. This aspect of the matter too has been considered expressly by both the courts below. This aspect of the matter too has been considered expressly by both the courts below. They have accepted the case of the landlady that she needed that accommodation at that time for being used as a godown for business purposes. The courts below have observed that the mere fact that prior to the making of the present application, the landlady occupied the building vacated by its previous tenant and started using it as a godown cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that the present need of the landlady is not bonafide. This finding of the courts below appears to be entirely unexceptionable and calls for no interference. 10. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority shows an element of bias against the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner read out the entire order at some length. He made some comments on the observations made by the Prescribed Authority. However, I find no observation in the order of the Prescribed Authority which may indicate the existence of any bias in favour or against any party. The grievance is entirely unjustified. Furthermore, the appellate court, which has made no such observations and against which there is no complaint of bias, has also upheld the claim of the landlady that she bonafide requires the accommodation in dispute. 11. Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that during the pendency of the application u/s 21 of the Act, some of the members of the landlady's family have shifted to some other accommodation reducing the pressure on the family. In my judgment, this circumstance cannot affect the validity of the findings of the courts below that the landlady does require additional accommodation for her increasing family and growing needs. The case of the landlady is that some of the members of the family have to be married, having become of marriageable age, requiring additional accommodation. In the course of adjudication of an application u/s 21 of the Act, the size of the family of the landlord may undergo some change by virtue of some of the members going out while others being added to the family by marriage or by birth, but that by itself cannot affect the basic requirements of the landlady. Unless the number of members of the family, whether of the landlord or of the tenant, undergoes some substantial change, such variations cannot affect the result. Unless the number of members of the family, whether of the landlord or of the tenant, undergoes some substantial change, such variations cannot affect the result. In the present case, the number of members of the family of the landlord is considerably large. The mere fact, therefore, that one or two members of the family have shifted to some other accommodation cannot affect the validity of the impugned orders. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Commissioner was not allowed to inspect some property pointed out by the Petitioner. It is alleged that the landlady had obstructed the Commissioner from inspecting the properties. The averment of the Petitioner has been denied in the counter affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the property which was shown as available with the landlady and which the Commissioner is alleged to have been prevented from seeing, was in fact ' under the statutory control of the Excise Authorities. Apart from this, I do not find that any grievance was made on this score before the courts below. I therefore, find no substance in this point either. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, lastly submitted that the buildings are stated to be used as godowns and, therefore, not available to the landlady, at least the first floor portions ought to have been considered as available accommodation for the landlady's family. I do not find that any basis for such an argument has been laid in the petition. Furthermore, this point does not appear to have been raised before the courts below. Even in this Court, there is no such specific averment in the writ petition showing that though the ground floor portions are occupied by godowns first floor portion is available for occupation by the landlady or is otherwise vacant. 14. Counsel for the Petitioner in the end offered that the Petitioner is prepared to take the portion which is being occupied by the landlady's son in Kackerganj, and which has been held by the courts below as not suitable for the needs of the landlady. Such an offer cannot be considered for the first time in this writ petition. No such offer was made in the courts-below. It is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the controversy raised by the Petitioner under this head of the arguments. Such an offer cannot be considered for the first time in this writ petition. No such offer was made in the courts-below. It is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the controversy raised by the Petitioner under this head of the arguments. The point raised involves investigation of facts for which no foundation has been laid even in the petition filed in this Court. 15. In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Petitioner is, however, granted three months' time within which he will hand over vacant possession of the accommodation to the Respondents. The Petitioner shall not hand over possession of the accommodation in dispute to any one except the landlady.