JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.1.1980 and judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6.1.1978 passed under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (briefly the Act). 2. The petitioners are owners of building No. 132, Hewett Road, Allahabad which they purchased on 19.12.1970 for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. Two rooms in the from portion of his building were in the tenancy of M/s. Shiv Dutt'a sons and four rooms, one courtyard, one lavatory and one bath room in the tenancy of M/s. Srivastava Binding Works, respondent No. 3, at a rental of Rs. 65/- per month since before the purchase of the building by the petitioners. The remaining portion of the ground floor and the upper storeys were in the occupation of the petitioners and it was said that the accommodation was being used for residential purposes. 3. The petitioners filed to applications for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the aforesaid tenants on the ground of personal need. In the release application filed against M/s. Shiv Dutt and sons it was said that the rooms were required to accommodate office and show room of a factory which petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, were going to set up. In the other release application the petitioners averred that petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 were unemployed and needed the accommodation in possession of the tenant (respondent No. 3) to install a factory for manufacture of nuts and bolts. They have no other accommodation where they could establish that factory. They had the financial capacity to install the factory and had ordered machinery for the same. their need to have the accommodation for installing the factory was bonafide, genuine and pressing. They would be put to greater hardship than the tenant if their application for release was rejected. The accommodation in question was not being used by the tenant and was lying closed. There would be no hardship to the tenant. their need to have the accommodation for installing the factory was bonafide, genuine and pressing. They would be put to greater hardship than the tenant if their application for release was rejected. The accommodation in question was not being used by the tenant and was lying closed. There would be no hardship to the tenant. In a replication filed on the 26.4.1979, the petitioners added that since the machines had been received and because the same were to be installed within a certain time limit, they were installed in the compound of M/s. Naveen Engineering Works at Naini, but that was merely a temporary arrangement. The need of the petitioners to have the accommodation in question for installing the nut and bolt factory was again emphasized. The petitioners also asserted that the tenant owned a big piece of land and could easily shift the business. 4. The tenant (respondent No. 3) contested the release application on various grounds. It contended that the accommodation in question was small in size and was not at all sufficient for the purpose of establishing a nut and bolt factory. The petitioners owned a big plot in the industrial area at Naini, which was suited for establishing the factory. The petitioner had already established the factory at Naini. It has no other place for shifting the business of book binding which was being carried on in the accommodation in question. The need of the petitioners to have the accommodation in question was not genuine. 5. A Vakil Commissioner was appointed to make a local inspection and he submitted a report dated 17.10.1975. The Prescribed Authority held that since the petitioners had established their factory at Naini, their claim for the accommodation in question had become infructuous. The middle portion of the house was in occupation of the petitioners, and if they so liked, they could establish the proposed factory in that portion. The tenant has acquired a good will for its business and its eviction was likely to cause substantial loss to it. For those reasons the Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application of the petitioners against the present tenant (respondent No. 3) by order dated 6.1.1979. 6. The petitioners appealed to the District Judge and the appeal was decided by the First Addl. District Judge, Allahabad by judgment dated 21.1.1980. For those reasons the Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application of the petitioners against the present tenant (respondent No. 3) by order dated 6.1.1979. 6. The petitioners appealed to the District Judge and the appeal was decided by the First Addl. District Judge, Allahabad by judgment dated 21.1.1980. The learned Judge took note of the facts that the accommodation in possession of M/s. Shiv Datt and Sons had been released in favour of the petitioners and that the petitioners had established their nut and bolt factory, Mateshwari Metal Factory at Naini. He observed that establishing a nut and bolt factory would require huge accommodation and the appellants (landlords) failed to establish by any cogent evidence that the size of the factory they want to establish could be accommodated in the disputed accommodation. He also said that there was nothing to show that the tenant had any other land, and that the contention of the tenant that it had acquired goodwill for the business running in the accommodation in question, appeared to be correct. Having regard to this material he dismissed the appeal. 7. The petitioners have challenged the above orders in this writ petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at great length and have considered the material on the record. 9. In order to succeed in a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the landlord must establish the following two things :- (i) That he bonafide requires the building for; (ii) that the hardship caused to him on the dismissal of his release application would be greater than the hardship to the tenant on account of the grant of the same. If the bonafide need is not made out, then the question of considering the hardship to the landlord would not arise. 10. In the instant case, the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority considered the question of bonafide need of the landlords and held against them. It appears that for this reason these authorities did not go into the question of comparative hardship in detail and in the passing only referred to the goodwill a business which the tenant had acquired while carrying on the business in the accommodation in question. It would have been much better if the two authorities had recorded findings on the question of comparative hardship as well. 11. It would have been much better if the two authorities had recorded findings on the question of comparative hardship as well. 11. The Appellate Authority inter alia observed in its judgment :- "Also it may be mentioned that the establishing of a nut and bolt factory would require huge accommodation and the appellants failed to establish by any cogent evidence on the record that the size of the factory they want to establish, could be accommodated in the disputed accommodation." The Appellate Authority did not say in so many words that on account of this circumstances it did not consider the need of the landlords to have the accommodation for establishing a factory, bonafide and genuine, but from the tenor of the judgment it is clear that for this reason, it (Appellate Authority) did not consider the need of the landlords bonafide and genuine. This finding has been challenged before me, but on a consideration of the relevant material I find that this finding is well-founded. 12. The landlords had not given the area of the accommodation in question and the area which was required by them to install the nut and bolt factory in their release application. In paragraph 19 of its written statement the tenant said that the area of the four rooms in question was 428 square feet only. In paragraph 20 of the written statement it said that another nut and bolt factory was established in an area of 3520 square feet and near about this such area is required for setting up a nut and bolt factory. The landlords replied to the averments in these paragraphs 9 and 10 of their replication. They merely said that the accommodation in question was quite fit for the purpose of installing machines. They, however, did not care to give the area of the accommodation in dispute or the area which they required for establishing their proposed factory. The Commissioner had visited the Naveen Engineering Works, Naini, and found that Mateshwari Metal Factory was occupying three sheds of the size of 60' x 40', 120' x 40' and 30' x 40'. In the first shed a lathe machine was installed in about th portion and the remaining portion was lying vacant. In the second shed machines for manufacturing nuts and bolts were installed and the manufacturing works was in progress. In the first shed a lathe machine was installed in about th portion and the remaining portion was lying vacant. In the second shed machines for manufacturing nuts and bolts were installed and the manufacturing works was in progress. Portion of this shed was being used as office also. The third shed was lying vacant and some sarias (iron bars) were found stored in it. The Commissioner was informed that a machine was installed in that shed but it had been sent for repairs. The machine was for reducing the thickness of iron bars. the Commissioner also noted that the running of machines was creating great notice. The Commissioner had also visited the accommodation in question. He did not give total area of that accommodation, but mentioned in his report that having regard to the machines which were working in the Mateshwari Metal Factory (at Naini) he was of the opinion that a nut and bolt factory could not be installed in the accommodation in question. This report of the Commissioner was not challenged by the landlords as appears from an observation contained in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. The failure of the landlords to give the area required by them for installing the nut and bolt factory and the area of the accommodation in question, is very significant. Their failure to challenge the report to the Commissioner is no less significant. The report of the Commissioner cannot be brushed aside as based on surmises and conjectures. He had seen the factory actually working at Naini and had also seen the accommodation in question and therefore his view that the latter was not sufficient to accommodate the factory of the landlords, deserves considerable weight. It goes to bear out the contention of the tenant. When the tenant had raised specific objection on this point, it was the duty of the landlords to place material before the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority to satisfy them that the accommodation in question was sufficient for establishing the nut and bolt factory. Since this material was not placed on the record, the Appellate Authority was justified in emphasising this gap and to conclude that the size of the factory which the landlords want to establish cannot be accommodated in the disputed accommodation. Since this material was not placed on the record, the Appellate Authority was justified in emphasising this gap and to conclude that the size of the factory which the landlords want to establish cannot be accommodated in the disputed accommodation. Where a landlord requires a building for running a business inter alia a relevant consideration is whether the accommodation would be adequate and suitable for the particular need of the landlord. If it is found that the accommodation of which release is sought, is not fit or sufficient for the particular purpose of the landlord, it may justifiably and legally be said that the need of the landlord for that particular accommodation is not bonafide. This is precisely the position in the instant case. In my view, the finding of the Appellate Authority on the point of need is well-founded. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the other release application was allowed and it was held by this Court that the two rooms in the occupation of M/s. Shiv Datt and Sons were bonafide required by the landlord for the office and show room of their factory, and this circumstance went a long way to establish the genuine need of the landlord in respect of the accommodation in question. This argument is not well-founded. The case of M/s. Shiv Datt is a reported decision 1979 (UP) RCC 639. A reading of this judgment shows that the need of the landlords for those two rooms alone was considered. There is nothing in that judgment which will help on the question of need of the landlords to have the accommodation in question for establishing the nut and bolt factory. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has next urged the subsequent events were not taken into consideration by the two authorities below. The factory was established at Naini as a temporary measure, because the machines had been received and had to be installed within a specified time. In paragraph 13 of the rejoinder affidavit it was specified given out that M/s. Naveen Engineering Works at Naini had compelled the petitioners to vacate their sheds. In view of this subsequent development, the need of the petitioners to have the accommodation in question remained bonafide and genuine. This argument cannot help the petitioners. The tenant respondent had controverted paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit by filing a supplementary counter affidavit. In view of this subsequent development, the need of the petitioners to have the accommodation in question remained bonafide and genuine. This argument cannot help the petitioners. The tenant respondent had controverted paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit by filing a supplementary counter affidavit. Thereafter the petitioners filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit and annexed some papers to it. Two annexures are letters to the Income Tax Officer, Allahabad and Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad saying that Mateshwari Metal Factory had stopped production with effect from Ist June, 1977, due to loss suffered by the factory. This closure of the factory had taken place while the release application was pending before the Prescribed Authority. It cannot be taken as a subsequent event. Further, the letters to the Income Tax Officer and the Sales Tax Officer assign an altogether different reason for the closure of the factory than the one given in paragraph 12 of the rejoinder Affidavit. In the instant case, the bonafide need of the landlords for the accommodation in question had been negatived on the ground that the accommodation in question is not fit and suitable for installing a nut and bolt factory and not on any other ground. This ground will remain in tact notwithstanding the so-called subsequent development. 15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the landlords had produced certain papers at the appellate stage and had also prayed that the tenant be directed to produce its electric and power bills for the last five years in respect of the accommodation in question. The documents produced were not considered by the Appellate Authority and the prayer summoning the electric bills was neither allowed, nor rejected. On account of non-consideration of this material the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority was vitiated. I have carefully considered this submission and in my view it cannot help the petitioners. The first paper filed was an application to the Health Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad for permission to start a nut and bolt factory at 132 Hewett Road, Allahabad. No permission or licence of the said authority was produced. The second paper was a no-objection certificate from some mohalla people saying that they had no objection to the installation of a nut and bolt factory at 132 Hewett Road, Allahabad. The third paper was a khasra showing that the partners of respondent No. 3 held other buildings. No permission or licence of the said authority was produced. The second paper was a no-objection certificate from some mohalla people saying that they had no objection to the installation of a nut and bolt factory at 132 Hewett Road, Allahabad. The third paper was a khasra showing that the partners of respondent No. 3 held other buildings. the said khasra and the electric bills which were summoned from the tenant would have had a bearing on the question of bonafide need. In these circumstances, non-consideration of these documents cannot be said to have vitiated the finding on the point of bonafide need of the landlords. The fact that a tenant is not using the accommodation in question, cannot make out the bonafide need of the landlord. Such need had to be established by other cogent and convincing material. 16. It is true that the question of hardship was not discussed by the Appellate Authority, but that too cannot help the petitioners. As said earlier, if the bonafide need is not made out, it may not be necessary to consider the question of comparative hardship of the parties. 17. On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position, I am clearly of the view that the orders of the two authorities below do not deserve to be interfered with or quashed. The dismissal of the release application was justified. 18. This writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs.