JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Primarily success or failure of this landlord's petition, arising out of an application for release of accommodation indispute filed under section 21(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, shall no doubt depend on correctness or otherwise of finding recording by appellate authority but it shall also have to be examined if this Court should interfere in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction even if no injustice is being done by the impugned order. 2. True, house no. D-38/63, Hauz Katora, Varanasi, having thirteen rooms in occupation of three tenants came in exclusive share of petitioner on partition by a compromise decree amongst four brothers may be because petitioner is an advocate or he was already in occupation of one of the rooms in ground floor yet the application could be allowed only if in the first instance it was found that the need of petitioner was bona fide and genuine and then finally on a comparison of respective needs of the two the need of petitioner was greater and more pressing. 3. Claim of petitioner was founded both on necessity to house eight members of family with five school going children and professional requirement of chamber in ground floor with appendages of a room for clerk, consulting room etc. Both the prescribed and appellate authority held the need to be bona fide. And rightly as petitioner has no other house. Requirement of rooms at ground floor for chamber, clerk etc. could not be validly contested. Nor was there any merit in claim of opposite party that petitioner could live with his brother and it was rightly repelled. After all a landlord having no other house is not only justified but has a right to seek release of accommodation for his personal use either residential or commercial or professional. All the same uprooting of tenant is of no less consequence. May be while considering application for release availability of alternative accommodation to tenant is not relevant consideration Kamil Khan v. III Addl. District Judge, 1983 All Rent Cases 783 and the authorities should not be oblivious of social status and requirement of landlord (Smt. Kamla Ahiya v. IV Addl. District Judge, 1981 U.P.R.C.C. 199. yet the hardship to tenant cannot be overlooked or undermined. District Judge, 1983 All Rent Cases 783 and the authorities should not be oblivious of social status and requirement of landlord (Smt. Kamla Ahiya v. IV Addl. District Judge, 1981 U.P.R.C.C. 199. yet the hardship to tenant cannot be overlooked or undermined. Consequently even after finding bona fide need of landlord the comparative hardship has to be analysed and even if the necessity of both is found at par it would not result in application being allowed. Additional circumstances must justify release. How comparison has to be done in an application for release on personal requirement has been attempted to be guided by various sub-clauses of rule 16 framed under Act 13 of 1972. Sub-rule (d) of rule 16 reads as under : "where the tenant's needs would be adequately met by leaving with him a part of the building under tenancy and the landlord's needs would be served by releasing the other part, the prescribed authority shall release only the latter part of building." It is this aspect of rule which has come in full play in this case. 4. It has been found and is not disputed that eight rooms in occupation of one Durga Das, brother of opposite party and tenant in the house have been released in favour of petitioner. And the order releasing it has become final. Petitioner obtained possession as well. Release application against another tenant Shiv Kali was also allowed and the order became final as the appeal filed by tenant was dismissed as barred by time and presumably no petition has been filed in this Court. It is further not disputed that opposite party is tenant of only three rooms. Although he claimed four rooms three on first floor and one in ground floor but there is no such finding in his favour. On the contrary learned counsel for petitioner produced certified copy of order in Civil Revision no. 164 of 1977 between parties in which it was held that he was tenant of three rooms only. From certified copy of sketch map produced by learned counsel for petitioner it is further clear that there are seven rooms in first floor excluding latrine and open space. Out of this two rooms in the back, one in west and other in North adjacent to each other are in tenancy of the opposite party. From certified copy of sketch map produced by learned counsel for petitioner it is further clear that there are seven rooms in first floor excluding latrine and open space. Out of this two rooms in the back, one in west and other in North adjacent to each other are in tenancy of the opposite party. In the ground floor there are six rooms excluding latrine, three varandah on three sides of court-yard, passage and a closed well. Out of it one room in the back in west is in tenancy of opposite part. In front of it there is open land. Front age of the house is in East. And two of the rooms are facing lane. In front of one of the rooms on extreme south is raised open land (Chabutra). Passage appears to be sommon. Stair for going on first floor is from one of Varandahs in the west in front of opposite party's room. 5. Prescribed authority was seized of all the three applications against three tenants. Against Durga Das, who was in possession of eight rooms, the application was allowed as he had constructed his own house. Shiv Kali appears to have been in possession of one room. I hat was also released. As regards opposite party he was of opinion that although need of both was genuine the room in possession of opposite party at ground floor, should be released (Finding is not backed by any reason). It was held that two rooms at first floor were sufficient for residential purposes. Neither of these findings are backed by any reason. He rejected the claim of petitioner that opposite party could shift to Bhandari Lane as he was only carrying on his business of Photography there and it was not sufficient for residential purposes. In appeal this was reversed. It was held that all the three rooms were needed for residential purpose. And the eight rooms of Durga Das released in favour of petitioner were sufficient for his requirement. 6. Much was attempted to be made out of unhappy finding recorded by appellate authority. At first flush it appeared convincing as well. In appeal this was reversed. It was held that all the three rooms were needed for residential purpose. And the eight rooms of Durga Das released in favour of petitioner were sufficient for his requirement. 6. Much was attempted to be made out of unhappy finding recorded by appellate authority. At first flush it appeared convincing as well. But after looking into the map and examining the finding in light of dispute raised and the decision of three appeals or three tenants together it became apparent that finding was not only well founded but interference may result in injustice to the opposite party. No doubt it was found that need of petitioner was pressing. But bona fide need is the first requirement, without which the application could not have been entertained. Therefore, not much can be made out of observation that need of landlord is more pressing. When in the just preceding sentence and the next succeeding sentence it was observed that three rooms were needed by the opposite party for residential purposes and need of petitioner was amply satisfied with eight rooms released in his favour. This finding of appellate authority has not been shown to suffer from any error of law as well. Detail of rooms and their location has already been mentioned earlier. Five rooms in ground floor are, in possession of petitioner. Two are in front. Then there are two, nearly immediately, in back of these rooms and one in the end in extreme west adjacent to opposite parties room. The accommodation by all standards is sufficient for lawyer's requirements. Then the room in possession of opposite party is in the back of the house. It was presumably for this reason that appellate authority did not consider it just to release in petitioner's favour. It could not serve either as lawyer's or clerk's chamber nor it could be utilised as consulting room. In the first floor petitioner has five rooms. Therefore after release of eight rooms of Durga Das the requirement of petitioner was adequately met. Although as a result of appellate order no part of accommodation in possession of opposite party stands released rather the application against him stands rejected. Yet considering the member of petitioner's family professional requirements, and tenant's hardship the appellate authority did not commit any error. Although as a result of appellate order no part of accommodation in possession of opposite party stands released rather the application against him stands rejected. Yet considering the member of petitioner's family professional requirements, and tenant's hardship the appellate authority did not commit any error. As the building was one and the need of landlord was found to have been satisfied with release of eight rooms of it the appellate authority rightly gave due weight to it while considering application for release of opposite party. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on Ajab Kumar Jain v. II Addl. District Judge, 1979 (1) R.C.J. 336 and urged that the appeal of tenant could not be allowed without recording finding that the need of the landlord was not bonafide. It is erroneous appreciation of the decision. In that case the order of Prescribed authority was set aside in respect of 3 feet space for staircase without considering whether it was possible for landlord to use his premises without it. The decision did not purport to lay down as suggested by the learned counsel that unless the need of landlord was rejected the appeal could not be allowed. It cannot be disputed that even if the need of landlord is genuine or bonafide the application can be rejected on the comparative need of hardship. Two decisions in Ram Niwas Pandey v. Addl. District Judge, 1382(1) A.R.C. 246 and Mohd. Sajjad v. II Addl. District Judge. 1982 A.R.C. 104 relied for petitioner are not relevant. In the former the order was set aside as comparative need was not considered and in latter the members of tenant's family was not considered to be relevant. 8. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.