JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by the Courts below allowing an application filed by the landlord of the disputed premises who is arrived as respondent No. 1 in this petition under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The dispute relates to a portion of house No. 113/441, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. The respondent No. 1 is the owner and landlord of the same while the petitioners are its tenants. 3. The application of the respondent No. 1 under Section 21 was based on the assertion that he was in Government service and was posted as Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in the Income Tax and was due to retire on 30th of June, 1978. He intended to practise law after retirement. He has no other house available with him where he could settle down and do his practice. As regard to the tenant, it was asserted that they could afford to rent another house being substantial industrialists. 4. The application was contested by the petitioners who disputed the claim of the landlord that he bonafide needed the accommodation or that he really intended to settle down at Kanpur. It was alleged that the eldest son of the landlord was in Government service and he could easily get a Government accommodation. The other son of the landlord was studying at Allahabad. In addition, the landlord also possessed an ancestral house in the same city. 5. Both the Courts below have upon an exhaustive consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances established on the record arrived at a very definite conclusion that the need of the landlord is bonafide and pressing and that he does intend to settle down at Kanpur and do practice there. Indeed the Courts below have taken notice of the fact that the landlord has since retired from service. In regard to the ancestral house, the Courts below have observed that it is owned by five brothers and one sister of the landlord and that the landlord has only ?th share therein and again there is no vacant or suitable accommodation available for the landlords family in any part of that house. On the issue of relative hardship also the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are that the landlords would suffer much greater hardship than the tenant. 6. On the issue of relative hardship also the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are that the landlords would suffer much greater hardship than the tenant. 6. Sri Jagdish Swarup learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the application was filed the landlord was still in service. He had, therefore, no cause of action. The fact that the landlord has retired during the pendency of that application can be of no avail to the basic infirmity from which the application suffered. 7. I am unable to accept the above contention. It is not correct to say that the landlord had no cause of action to file the application. In my opinion, an application can be filed under Section 21 on the basis of anticipated retirement which may take place in the forceable future. Further it is now firmly established that in deciding an application under Section 21 subsequent facts can be taken into consideration and the authorities are entitled to take into account the position as it exists on the date on which the orders are being passed thereon. Thus, in either view it cannot be said that the application filed by the landlord suffered from any legal infirmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on the record. However, he was unable to point out error which may have been committed by the Courts below in deciding the two issues namely bonafide need and comparative hardship. In any case, this Court cannot interfere with the orders passed under Section 21 on a mere reappraisal of the evidence. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is, however, granted time until 31st of March, 1983 on or before which he shall hand over vacant possession of the disputed accommodation to the respondents-landlord peacefully and without causing any sort of obstruction whatsoever. The petitioner shall also not directly or indirectly induct any other person over the disputed premises. In addition, the petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of rent and damages for the period upto 31st of March, 1983 with the Prescribed Authority Kanpur or pay it directly to the respondent-landlord within a period of two months from today. Any amounts which the petitioners may have deposited or paid to landlord on the aforesaid account shall be liable to be adjusted. Any amounts which the petitioners may have deposited or paid to landlord on the aforesaid account shall be liable to be adjusted. In the event of default the order of eviction shall be liable to be enforced forthwith.