JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 3-1-1979 passed by the Resident Magistrate, Hardwar, and the order dated 12-8-1980 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, dismissing the revision which have been filed as annexure I and II respectively to this petition. 2. In brief the facts are that the petitioner is the landlady of premises no. 316 situate at Jasa Ram Road, Hardwar. The ground floor of the said premises comprises of two rooms, 1 latrine, 1 bathroom, 2 kitchens and one verandah. The first floor was constructed sometime in 1976 and was let out to one Ramesh Chandra Goswami in 1977. A room, a kitchen and verandah on the ground floor in occupation of Prem Prakash was vacated and released in favour of the petitioner vide order of the Resident Magistrate dated 3-10-1978. Later on another portion on the ground floor in occupation of either Raj Kumar or Prem Prakash was also vacated. This portion consisted of one room, one small kitchen common latrine and common bathroom. 3. Initially a dispute as regards vacancy was raised by the petitioner while few other persons interested in the allotment of the portion in their favour asserted that the portion had been vacated. However, the Resident Magistrate declared the portion as vacant. The petitioner then applied for the release of the portion in her favour on the ground of her bonafide and genuine need while other persons contested the requirements of the petitioner and were parties to the proceedings in opposing the release application. 4. The petitioner had come forward with the case that she was suffering from heart ailment and as per the advice of the doctors she had decided to stay permanently at Hardwar and leave Firozpur where her husband was carrying on business. It was also stated that the petitioner was a religious minded lady and wanted to devote the rest of her life at Hardwar which was a sacred place for Hindus. A portion on the ground floor having common amenities of bathroom and latrine had already been released in her favour by the Resident Magistrate, Hardwar, vide his order dated 31-10-1978. It was also stated that the petitioner was a religious minded lady and wanted to devote the rest of her life at Hardwar which was a sacred place for Hindus. A portion on the ground floor having common amenities of bathroom and latrine had already been released in her favour by the Resident Magistrate, Hardwar, vide his order dated 31-10-1978. As she was a sick lady it was necessary that her son and daughter-in-law should also reside at Hardwar to look after her and to provide necessary help and assistance. The portion in dispute was thus required genuinely and bonafide for the residence. The portion in dispute was thus required genuinely and bonafide for the residence of her son and daughter-in-law as it was not possible to accommodate them in one room which was in petitioner's occupation. This requirement of the petitioner as is manifest from the order of the Resident Magistrate dated 3.1.1979 was disputed and opposed by Ashok Kumar and other persons who participated in the proceedings. Even affidavits of other persons were filed by Ashok Kumar and others decrying the need of the petition. The Resident Magistrate vide his order dated 3.1.1979 rejected the release application and orders for the consideration of the application for allotment were passed. 5. A revision against the order dated 3-1-1979 was preferred to the court of the District Judge which was transferred to the court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, for disposal according to law. This revision was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 12-8-1980. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3-1-1979 and 12-8-1980 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for quashing the said orders. 7. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 8. The petitioner had claimed the release of a portion on the ground floor comprising of a room, a small kitchen, common latrine and bathroom. This portion has common amenities of bathroom and latrine with the other portion on the ground floor. One of the portions on the ground floor had already been released in her favour on 3-10-1978. This portion is in occupation of the petitioner. This portion has common amenities of bathroom and latrine with the other portion on the ground floor. One of the portions on the ground floor had already been released in her favour on 3-10-1978. This portion is in occupation of the petitioner. The other portion in dispute which is in front of the portion occupied by the petitioner was sought to be released on the ground that it was required by the petitioner to accommodate her son and daughter-in-law so that they may be able to look after and assist the petitioner in her ailments. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not consider this aspect of the need and instead went to examine the property or the truthfulness of her ailment. This apparently was wholly erroneous in view of the significant fact that while the portion occupied by her already stood released on the ground of her illness and that too a couple of months back. Further it may appear to be incomprehensible that the authorities only sometime back adjudged the need of the petitioner to be bonafide and genuine when the petitioner claimed release of a portion on the ground of her intention to stay permanently at Hardwar and more so on account of her heart ailment, now when the petitioner is admittedly living at Hardwar on account of her heart illness and intention to stay in the last years of her life her need to keep her son and daughter-in-law to help and assist her is found to be unreasonable. This does not appear to be convincing. But again this illness seems to have been reassessed. Another aspect which was very material in the circumstances of the case is that the need for accommodating her son and daughter-in-law had not been adjudged by the respondents and thus they committed a material irregularity and a manifest error of law in deciding the application for release. It has also not to be ignored that the portion on the ground floor has common amenities of latrine and bath-room and inducting a foreigner would certainly be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Though this aspect may be examined while allotting the accommodation to some other persons still this fact has not to be lost sight of. It has also not to be ignored that the portion on the ground floor has common amenities of latrine and bath-room and inducting a foreigner would certainly be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Though this aspect may be examined while allotting the accommodation to some other persons still this fact has not to be lost sight of. If the petitioner abuses the release order there is adequate remedy in the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act (Act No. XIII of 1972) to remedy such an abuse. It is amply clear that the need of the petitioner so far as the portion in dispute was required for accommodating her son and daughter-in-law has not been adjudged thus warranting interference by this Court. 9. Further in the instant case other persons claiming allotment in their favour had opposed the release application on the assertion that the need of the petitioner is neither bonafide nor genuine. Such a participation is not permissible in law as it is a matter between the landlord and the District Magistrate, Catena of decision are there to support this view. The matter of release is a matter concerning the District Magistrate alone vis-a-vis the landlord. No other person has been given any such right either to participate in such proceedings or to file objections against it. The need of the landlord is not liable to be balanced against other claimants. The consideration of need would be deemed to be a matter interse between the landlord and the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate has only to be satisfied before releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord that need is bonafide and genuine. Any other person has no right of raising an objection or participate in the proceedings against the release application or against the order passed by the District Magistrate releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord. This view finds support from a Full Bench decision of this Court in Talib Husain v. Addl. District Judge, Nainital, Writ Petition No. 7782 of 1982 of which I was member. In view of the above discussions and also that the respondents failed to consider the need of the petitioner for her son and daughter-in-law and thus erred in law and committed material irregularity. District Judge, Nainital, Writ Petition No. 7782 of 1982 of which I was member. In view of the above discussions and also that the respondents failed to consider the need of the petitioner for her son and daughter-in-law and thus erred in law and committed material irregularity. The petition thus deserves to be allowed and the orders dated 3.1.79 and 12.8.80 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively are liable to be quashed. 10. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 3.1.79 and 12.2.80 passed by respondents 1 and 2 respectively are quashed. The case is remanded back to the Resident Magistrate. Hardwar for considering the release application according to law and in the light of the observations made above. There will be however, no order as to costs.