ORDER U. C. Srivastava, J. - This tenant's petition is directed against the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge allowing the landlord's appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting his application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord-opposite party No. 2 filed an application under section 21 of the Act against the petitioner in respect of the premises in his possession which is known as Hata consisting of one Kotha, tin-shed and Sahan closed from all the sides which adjoins the western house of the petitioner bearing Municipal Nos. 294 and 295 consisting of two shops and three big rooms out of which two rooms are for 'Karkhana' under the tenancy of one Rashid and one room is used as Godown. Opposite party No. 2 filed the application for release of the said accommodation on the ground that he has got a big family consisting of six sons out of whom four are in separate business and the other two sons who have grown up are going to he married shortly and have no independent business of their own. It was further alleged by him that be had fixed a 'Ata Chakki' which had to be closed due to paucity of accommodation and he would like raise the constructions in the accommodation which is in the tenancy of the tenant for his two sons. A complaint for raising unauthorised constructions by the tenant was also made by the landlord, which proceedings are going on. 2. The application of release filed by the tenant was resisted by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the landlord has a big business which is being carried on jointly by the entire family and the other two sons of the landlord are also not out of employment and are doing the same business with their father. Stoppage of 'Ata Chakki' for the time being was also admitted, but so far as the accommodation by the tenant is concerned it was stated by him that the same cannot be used for tying cattle and there was no accommodation with him from which he could carry on business of Dairy Farm which he is carrying on for the last several years on that place. 3. Before the Prescribed Authority number of documents including affidavits were filed. 3. Before the Prescribed Authority number of documents including affidavits were filed. A Commissioner was also appointed by the Prescribed Authority who reported the accommodation owned by the landlord and the work which was going on there. He also found that 'Ata Cnakki' was in working order and there were two motors fitted out of which one was in working order and two sons of the landlord were also getting power from the same. The Prescribed Authority after taking into consideration the respective contentions of the parties rejected the application of release filed by the landlord and came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove his bona fide need and none of his sons were unemployed for want of accommodation. 4. The landlord filed an appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority before the District Judge which came up for hearing before the 1st Additional District Judge who was of the view that although four sons of the landlord have already been settled in business, but two of his sons still require accommodation for settling themselves and held that the landlord's need for settling his two sons is bona fide and genuine and the business of manufacture of musical instruments is not the joint family business and the two sons of the landlord are not employed. So far as comparative hardship is concerned, the appellate court was of the view that in the absence of any document of partition set up by the tenant between himself and his brother it was clear that there was sufficient open space in which the cattle could be kept for Dairy business and greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner if the application for release was rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties again and perused the affidavits filed by both the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties again and perused the affidavits filed by both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was proved from the Commissioner's report and the evidence on record that there was sufficient accommodation with the landlord and he does not require any additional accommodation and the sons of the petitioner are employed and two of his sons for whom accommodation is allowed enquired are carrying on business with their father and the 'Ata Chakki' which is said to be closed, was in fact found to be running by the Commissioner and power to the father's business and that of two sons was being supplied from one motor which clearly indicates that they were carrying on business jointly and ass matter of fact it was one and the same business, if not carried on jointly, and was inter-linked with each other. The appellate court did take into consideration the respective contentions of the parties including that the sons of the petitioner were carrying on business on rented premises and there was paucity of accommodation, otherwise they would not have taken shops on rent. So far as joint business is concerned, it is obvious that the appellate court was of the view that the landlord in fact still needs more accommodations and as such his need is bone fide. The finding is not vitiated merely because 'Ata Chakki' was found to be in working order. Certain indication for it are to be found out in the pleadings of the landlord, as such it cannot be said that the assertion regarding 'Ata Chakki' was allegedly incorrect. The finding which has been recorded by the court below is obviously a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence. Even if there were some flaws here and there that will not vitiate the finding and make it liable for interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. The finding which has been recorded by the court below is obviously a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence. Even if there were some flaws here and there that will not vitiate the finding and make it liable for interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. So far as the question of comparative needs is concerned on which great stress was laid by the parties, the appellate court decided the question rather on one circumstances and there was no document which may evidence partition between the petitioner and his brother, as such there was enough accommodation with him to carry on business and greater hardship will be caused to the landlord in case application for release is rejected In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner contended that so far as evidence of partition is concerned, his own affidavit was on the record and from the Commissioner's report it appears that portions which were in possession of the petitioner's brother were marked by letters A. B and C. In the affidavit dated 4th July, 1975 filed by the landlord it was stated that the landlord was using the disputed place for tethering buffaloes and he was residing in the adjoining house No. 296. The appellate court only observed that there was no document which may evidence partition, but the Commissioner's report was taken into account and from the report of the Commissioner the appellate court was satisfied that there was still space for the purpose of carrying on his business and thereafter it arrived at a particular conclusion. As a matter of fact so far as comparative needs of the parties are concerned they are more in favour of the landlord than the tenant. It is not in dispute that the tenant owns adjoining premises and there is some open space and earlier he was tethering she- buffalo in the portion of the premises regarding which a partition is said to have taken place between him and his brother. It is not a case that the tenant will be without any accommodation or he will be thrown out of business. The landlord has come forward with his growing need of accommodation for his two sons and merely because two of his sons are carrying on business with him it cannot be said that they are settled in business. The tenant may feel some inconvenience, but adjustments are always possible. The landlord has come forward with his growing need of accommodation for his two sons and merely because two of his sons are carrying on business with him it cannot be said that they are settled in business. The tenant may feel some inconvenience, but adjustments are always possible. Although the appellate court has not discussed the matter elaborately, but it did take into consideration the evidence and thereafter recorded a finding. The finding may also be based on inference. yet it is a finding of fact and no case for disturbing the same is made out. As such the petitioner has not succeeded in making out a case that the question of comparative hardship has not been correctly decided. In these circumstances the writ petition flits and deserves to be dismissed. 7. The writ petition is dismissed, but taking into consideration the totality of circumstances time upto 31st December, 1982 is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord without any objection. It is on this understanding that the time is being granted to the petitioner. In case vacant possession is not handed over to the landlord-opposite party within this period the order for eviction of the tenant petitioner shall immediately become enforceable. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.