JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - Petitioner filed an application in the year 1982 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for getting the premises in dispute released in his favour. In the application the petitioner put forward his need for the disputed accommodation being pressing on the ground that proceedings for his eviction have been initiated by his landlord in respect of the accommodation in which he was residing. It is now not disputed that the matter regarding the ejectment of the petitioner from the accommodation in which he was living as tenant went up to the highest court and stands decided against him and the petitioner has, in fact, vacated the aforesaid premises. Petitioner filed evidence before the Prescribed Authority showing that part of the accommodation in dispute which consists of two rooms were already in his possession which was not sufficient for the residence of his family which consisted of six members. 2. The aforesaid application was contested by the tenant on the ground that the accommodation already in possession of the landlord was sufficient for his residential purposes and that the petitioner will sutler more hardship in case the application for release was granted. 3. The Prescribed Authority decided the application in favour of the petitioner and held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and he has been ordered to be evicted. On the question of comparative hardship a finding has been recorded that the need of the landlord was more pressing. Feeling aggrieved the tenant preferred an appeal which has been allowed under the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal of the tenant on the ground that the finding on the question of bona fide requirement has been set aside by the lower Appellate Court without adverting itself to the fact that the petitioner was in possession of only two rooms and the family members consisted of the petitioner, his wife, two sons and two grown up daughters. It has also been urged that the finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court on the question of comparative hardship also suffers from error of law apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as the lower Appellate Court had not mentioned while recording a finding on the question, the case set up by the petitioner on the question of comparative hardship. 5. It may be noticed that despite service no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 3. I have carefully gone through the findings recorded by the Appellate Court on the question of bona fide requirement. The finding recorded by the Appellate Court on this question, in my opinion, is not correct as the same has been recorded in a very coursory manner. It has not been found as to what is the size of the accommodation and what is the size of the petitioner's family. If this is correct that the petitioner's family consists of six members as stated above, the family will at least require three rooms for their residential purposes. In any view of the matter the Appellate Court has to see the size of the rooms, record finding on the actual number of members of the petitioner's family and thereafter record a finding into after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances as to whether the accommodation already in his possession was sufficient for his residential purposes. The finding on the question of bona fide requirement is, thus, set aside. 6. As far as the finding recorded on the question of comparative hardship, the same also suffers from the same vice. A finding on this question has to be recorded after comparing the hardship which will be suffered by both the parties. A bare reading of the judgment on this question would show that the lower Appellate Court has cursorily decided the aforesaid question. The hardship which has been put forward by the landlord has not at all been considered. This finding also in my opinion, is liable to be set aside. 7. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 24-4-1984 is quashed. The lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal again a accordance with law and after keeping in view the observations made in this judgment. The application for release had been filed in the year 1982. 7. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 24-4-1984 is quashed. The lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal again a accordance with law and after keeping in view the observations made in this judgment. The application for release had been filed in the year 1982. The Appellate Court will try to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of the filing of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. 8. A certified copy of this judgment shall be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week.