ORDER V.K. Khanna, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the order of the II Additional District Judge, Saharanpur dated 28.9.1984 allowing the appeal filed by the landlady against the decision of the Prescribed Authority rejecting her application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. The impugned order has been assailed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly it has been urged that the appellate court while up SETTING the decision given by the Prescribed Authority has recorded no finding on the question of comparative hardship. Secondly it has been urged that the petitioner has filed an affidavit to the effect that the husband of the landlady has a residential accommodation in Firozpur and the appellate authority has not at all considered the aforesaid question that the landlady could settle at Firozpur. 3. It may be mentioned that at the admission stage the contesting respondent put in appearance and filed a counter affidavit. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has thus been heard finally under the rules of the Court. 4. For deciding the first question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to notice some facts. It has not been disputed before me that the husband of the landlady was in Government service posted at Chandigarh and admittedly has retired on 31.10.1984. The husband of the landlady was in possession of a Government accommodation which admittedly was to be vacated by him within a period of two months from the date of his retirement. The lower appellate court has found on facts that the landlady in possession of only one room while her family consists of six members i.e. she herself, her husband, two sons and two daughters. The finding on the question of bonafide requirement thus on these facts is based on correct appraisal of evidence and cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. It was next to be seen as to whether the lower appellate court has recorded a finding on the question of comparative hardship. 5. It was next to be seen as to whether the lower appellate court has recorded a finding on the question of comparative hardship. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the lower appellate court has observed in its judgment as follows : "If the house is not released in her favour then she would face un-imaginable hardship because she would be on road in Chandigarh with her family as a clerk cannot afford to take a house on rent or to by a house in Chandigarh after retirement. In the same manner he is quite unable to make arrangement for a house in Saharanpur because his pension would be very much less than his pay or if the application is rejected then he would suffer hardship whereas the tenant has been deposed to be a man of means and he can get a house allotted or he can get a house on rent by means of his own efforts." 6. From the perusal of the entire averment made in the writ petition as well as in the grounds it would be seen that no attempt has been made by the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid finding recorded by the lower appellate court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however prayed that some time be granted to supplement the petition on this question. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and specially the fact which has been stated before me that the petitioner is a business man the prayer for granting time has been refused. In the present case even if one independently looks to the question of comparative hardship one would find that the source of income of the landlady is only the pension of her husband. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent on enquiry from the landlady who is present in Court has made a statement before me that the pension of Rs. 525/- would be payable to the husband of the landlady. The petitioner-tenant on the other hand is carrying on a business and thus looking to the relative financial positions of the parties it can safely be inferred that the tenant can easily afford to rent a house. 525/- would be payable to the husband of the landlady. The petitioner-tenant on the other hand is carrying on a business and thus looking to the relative financial positions of the parties it can safely be inferred that the tenant can easily afford to rent a house. The finding on the question of comparative hardship recorded by the court below therefore in my opinion is based on correct appraisal of facts and cannot be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The last question which falls for determination in this writ petition is as to whether it was necessary for the lower appellate court to have considered the question as to whether the landlady could settle as Firozpur. Without going into the question as to whether a house is in fact available to the landlady at Firozpur or I am of the opinion that it is for the landlady to decide as to where the children: of the landlady shall receive better education and where she wants to settle. She having made a statement that she wants to settle at Saharanpur she is entitled to get her application considered on merits under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and in case she makes out a case the application will have to be allowed. 8. Before parting it may be observed that the landlady admittedly is in possession of a room in the city of Saharanpur. The aforesaid room in possession of the landlady has been offered as an alternative accommodation to the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner-tenant will intimate within a month from today in writing to the landlady whether he is prepared to take the alternative accommodation which is in possession of the landlady-respondent situated in Mohalla Dhobian, Saharanpur. In case the petitioner intimates to the landlady about his decision to take the alternative accommodation, the petitioner will be entitled to get the alternative accommodation. 9. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned order is affirmed subject to this modification that the petitioner will be entitled to get the alternative accommodation subject the condition mentioned above. 10. It is being made clear that after the expiry of one month the petitioner shall be entitled to get the possession of the accommodation in dispute. 11. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned order is affirmed subject to this modification that the petitioner will be entitled to get the alternative accommodation subject the condition mentioned above. 10. It is being made clear that after the expiry of one month the petitioner shall be entitled to get the possession of the accommodation in dispute. 11. A certified copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges by 4th January, 1985.