JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This is tenant's petition directed against order of eviction passed in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972). The dispute in the petition pertains to ground-floor of house No. 25, New Berry Road, Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow. The first floor of this accommodation is in the possession of the landlord. The tenant-petitioner has lost before both the authorities. 2. The aforesaid application under Section 21 was filed by the Smt. Sheo Kala Bajpai. During the pendency of the proceedings before the authorities below she died and her heirs were brought on record who are opposite parties Nos. 3 to 19 in this petition. 3. The landlord had pleaded that the accommodation in question had been let out to the petitioner in the year 1966 when the size of her family was comparatively small and over the years the family has grown and additional accommodation is required. It was also stated that she was sufficiently advanced in age and her Husband was also old and it was inconvenient for them to stay on the first floor. The accommodation at her disposal was stated to comprise of three rooms measuring 16 ft. x 16 ft., 16 ft. x 12 ft. and 16 ft. x 12 ft. Apart from these three rooms an additional room was also stated to be in her possession which was over the garrage. In this manner four rooms were available to the landlady. At the time of filing application the family staying at Lucknow was stated to comprise of twelve members. The details of the members staying at Lucknow was given in paragraph 9 of the application under Section 21, Annexure-21. Out of these twelve members there were two married sons of the landlady, namely. Ashwani Kumar Bajpai and Ajay Kumar Bajpai, Ashwani Kumar Bajpai's family comprised of himself, his wife and three children while the family of Ajay Kumar Bajpai comprised of himself, his wife and two children. One of the sons of the landlay Shashi Kumar Bajpai was earlier posted out of Lucknow but in the year 1975 he was transferred to Lucknow. Ashwani Kumar Bajpai and Ajay Kumar Bajpai, Ashwani Kumar Bajpai's family comprised of himself, his wife and three children while the family of Ajay Kumar Bajpai comprised of himself, his wife and two children. One of the sons of the landlay Shashi Kumar Bajpai was earlier posted out of Lucknow but in the year 1975 he was transferred to Lucknow. On account of paucity of accommodation on the first floor of the house in question he had to take a house on rent at Nirala Nagar where he is staying along with his family comprising of himself, his wife and children. The plea of the landlady was that Shashi Kumar Bajpai was living in a rented accommodated because the accommodation at her disposal was insufficient. Both, the Prescribed Authority and the learned Additional District Judge here upheld the claim of bona fide requirement set up by the landlady. They have also made a compression of the hardships and come to the conclusion that the petitioner will suffer lesser hardship in the event of his being evicted from the accommodation in question inasmuch as he is financially well off. 4. The learned Additional District Judge has recorded these findings after taking into account the changes which occurred during the pendency of the case. The original applicant and her husband have died. Thus, the size of the original family got reduced to ten but mean while the son of the original applicant Vijay Kumar was transferred to Lucknow and his family comprises of himself, his wife and two children. In this manner four more members were added to the family. Thus, the size of the family got increased to fourteen. These fourteen persons are living on the first floor of the accommodation in question. Considering the size of the family, the accommodation available to these fourteen persons in insufficient. Besides these fourteen persons Sashi Kumar Bajpai, another son of the deceased landlady, was staying at Nirala Nagar on account of the paucity of accommodation in the first floor of the accommodation in question. His family comprises of himself, his wife and five children. If his family is also taken into consideration, the size of the family requiring accommodation at New Berry Road will get increased to twenty one. 5. His family comprises of himself, his wife and five children. If his family is also taken into consideration, the size of the family requiring accommodation at New Berry Road will get increased to twenty one. 5. On the above facts the finding of bona fide requirement recorded in favour of the landlord cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the family of Sashi Kumar Bajpai should be excluded from consideration as he is already living in a rented accommodation and he gets house allowance from his employer. Even if the family of Sashi Kumar Bajpai is excluded there would be fourteen members to reside in the accommodation comprising of only four rooms. There would be three family units inasmuch as three sons of the deceased landlady would be residing in the house along with their families. In my opinion even by exclusion of the family of Sashi Kumar Bajpai the accommodation available to the sons of the landlady living at Lucknow is insufficient. 6. The learned Counsel then submitted that another son of the deceased landlady-Tej Kumar Bajpai, was also required to be excluded from consideration inasmuch as he was no longer staying at Lucknow. This plea does not appear to have been raised before the authorities below. The argument is based upon the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition. In this paragraph it is stated that on the death of the landlady Smt. Sheo Kala Bajpai the petitioner had made application for substitution in which Tej Kumar Bajpai was shown to be residing at Gorakhpur and the notice of the substitution application was served upon him at Gorakhpur. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge does not contain any reference of this argument and it is not stated by the petitioner that any such argument was raised before him. I am accordingly not inclined to entertain this plea at this stage. 7. It was next submitted that the landlady had constructed a room over the garrage and this was let out which indicated that she did not require additional accommodation. The argument is misconceived inasmuch as the application under Section 21 shows that this room was in the possession of the landlady. 7. It was next submitted that the landlady had constructed a room over the garrage and this was let out which indicated that she did not require additional accommodation. The argument is misconceived inasmuch as the application under Section 21 shows that this room was in the possession of the landlady. In paragraph 3 of the application (Annexure-2) the landlady has referred to the accommodation in her possession and that included the room over the garrage also. Contents of paragraph 3 of the application were admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of his written statement. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the room constructed over the garrage had been let out by the landlady. It may be that at some point of time it was let out but at the time of the application was made it was in the possession of the landlady. 8. It was also convassed that the landlady had a house at Rani Katra which fell vacant but instead of occupying the same it was let out. Regarding the Rani Katra house the landlady had made statement in the application under Section 21 itself that it was situate in a crowded locality. In other words the landlady did not want to shift to that accommodation which was situate in a crowded locality. 9. While comparing the hardships, the learned District Judge has observed that the petitioner had taken the accommodation on rent in the year 1966 when the rent of Rs. 300/- per month was settled and in terms of money value Rs. 300/- are equivalent today to Rs. 3,000/-. In other words the Court below has observed that the petitioner has the capacity to hire accommodation carrying a lent of Rs. 3,000/- or near about. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no basis for this observation. The extent to which the rupee has got devalued is well-known. However, in the application under Section 21 itself the landlady had stated that the petitioner was financially well-off. The petitioner merely denied the allegation but did not state his avocation or source of livelihood or monthly income or whether he was paying income-tax. This was a matter within the special knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has rendered no assistance to the Court in asserting his financial capacity. The petitioner merely denied the allegation but did not state his avocation or source of livelihood or monthly income or whether he was paying income-tax. This was a matter within the special knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner has rendered no assistance to the Court in asserting his financial capacity. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the Court below committed manifest error in recording the finding of comparative hardship against the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner shall have four months' time to vacate the accommodation in question. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged.