ORDER R.S. Dhavan, J. - A landlord from Meerut impugns the order in appeal under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 of the IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut by which the release application under S. 21 of the Act allowed by the Prescribed Authority has been rejected. 2. It is on record that the landlord was seeking an additional accommodation for the members of his family. Amongst these members were two married daughters and their children; under the law, these daughters would otherwise not come within the meaning of family, but the landlord contended that they resided with him as his daughters relations with their in-laws were strained. The need of the landlord was considered by the Prescribed Authority for the totality of the numbers mentioned in the application under S. 21. 3. The landlord has five sons; four are married The quantum of accommodations as noticed by the District Judge on record are big rooms and in addition a latrine, a bathroom and a kitchen. The accommodation available with the tenant .is one small room, one verandah and a small courtyard. The tenant is a widow and lives with her daughter who was married, but divorced. The landlord contended and is on record on the application seeking release, that the accommodation with him was restricted for reasons that of the two rooms, on the ground floor, one was required to keep goats and sheep as he traded in them and the other was in a dilapidated condition. Thus a part of the accommodation was not usable and he attempted to make out a case that he should have the accommodation in the occupancy of the tenant. 4. The Prescribed Authority granted permission for eviction of the tenant, the widow and her daughter. The District Judge set aside the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. 5. One aspect which the learned District Judge considered was that the court of Prescribed Authority had permitted itself to be prejudiced by a factor which was otherwise not on record, nor proved. The Prescribed Authority upon unverified submissions of the landlord observed in effect that the tenant and her daughter were living an immoral life and indulged in undesirable activities and they had intimate relations with undesirable persons. The learned District Judge held that this was not a correct or judicious approach as it virtually tantamounted to casting: aspersions without proof. The Prescribed Authority upon unverified submissions of the landlord observed in effect that the tenant and her daughter were living an immoral life and indulged in undesirable activities and they had intimate relations with undesirable persons. The learned District Judge held that this was not a correct or judicious approach as it virtually tantamounted to casting: aspersions without proof. The learned District Judge was right in criticising the Prescribed Authority in giving credence to defamatory expressions of the landlord against the tenant] when the submissions could not stand judicial; scrutiny. Allegations against the character of a person must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 6. This Court has seen the judgment of the Prescribed Authority and the observation against the character of the tenant and her daughter on more than one occasion are irresponsible and undesirable. A court must refrain from such observations unless the expression can withstand judicial scrutiny. The learned District Judge is not wrong when-he came to the conclusion that this factor weighed heavily with the Prescribed Authority and that that court even forgot to examine the question whether the tenant should she be evicted would face hardship also. The Prescribed Authority was more concerned of the inconvenience to the landlord if the release application was not to be allowed. 7. The learned District Judge observe that the trial court did not consider the quantum of accommodation in the possession of the landlord and whether sue accommodation would be sufficient for h family. The learned District Judge was of view that the room where the goats and she were kept could be effectively utilised as an additional accommodation; that the so-called room in a dilapidated condition could indeed be repaired and put to use; and a part of that verandah could be utilised to shift the flock of goats and sheep. On facts, the appellate court found that the landlord had sufficient accommodation already in his possession and the application seeking release of the accommodation housing the tenant and her daughter, was not bona fide and legally not maintainable. 8. This Court does not find any error in the order of the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 10th February, 1987, nor any illegality apparent, manifest or otherwise to give an occasion to this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the decision assailed. The petition is thus dismissed.