ORDER R.P. Singh, J. - Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same order passed by the District Judge, Jhansi in proceedings under S. 21(2)(x) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the facts of the cases are same, they are being decided by common judgment. Writ petition No. 13740 of 1983 will be the leading case. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that Smt. Kusum Lata Srivastava respondent No. 1 is the landlady of house No. 69/84, Civil, Lines, Jhansi and in the western portion of which the petitioner Smt. Dyman Prabha Dogra is the tenant. The landlady respondent No. 1 filed an application under S. 21(2)(a) of the Act for the release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that her husband has now been transferred back to Jhansi where he is working as Head Accountant while her family consists of herself, her husband, two grown up daughters and one son while the total accommodation available to the landlady consists of three rooms, verandah and a small courtyard which is wholly insufficient for the accommodation of the family members of the landlady and since now the eldest daughter of the landlady who is M.Sc., B.Sc. also wants to start tuition for which she needed a separate room, the accommodation in possession of the landlady is totally inadequate and insufficient and hence her need for the disputed accommodation in possession of the tenant is bona fide and genuine and she would be put to greater hardship if the disputed accommodation is not released in her favour. 3. The application moved by the landlady was contested by the petitioner-tenant Smt. Dyman Prabha Dogra on the ground that the two grown up daughters of the landlady, one of whom is M.Sc., B.Ed. while the other daughter is studying in M.A. are going to be married in the near future and after their marriage the landlady would have ample accommodation for herself, her husband and one son and hence the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation is not bona fide and genuine and further that the eldest daughter of the landlady is in fact not going to start any tuition work for which an additional room is alleged to he required and further that the petitioner is a teacher getting a salary of Rs. 461 per month from the school and has no alternative accommodation and she would be put to greater hardship in case the application of the landlady is allowed. 4. The Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence led by the parties held that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation was bona fide and genuine and greater hardship would be caused to her in case the accommodation is not released and with these finding allowed the application. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal before the learned District Judge who held that the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation was bona fide and genuine but her need could be served by releasing only a part of the accommodation while leaving the remaining part of the accommodation with the tenant which would adequately meet the tenants need and wide his order dated 12-9-83 the learned District Judge ordered the release of one room 10' x 12' in the south west corner of the house along with covered verandah of the size of 5' x 10' in favour of the landlady and further ordering a proportionate reduction in the rent from Rs. 250/- per month to Rs. 200/- per month. 5. Subsequently, however, the petitioner tenant filed an application before the learned District Judge for clarification of his order dated 12-9-83 to the effect that by the part release of the accommodation by which one room and part of the verandah has been released in favour of the landlady, no passage for the ingress or a egress is left to the tenant for the other room which is left with her and the petitioner be allowed to open a door in the room towards the South. While deciding this application the learned District Judge changed his order dated 12-9-83 passed in appeal at the instance of, the landlady who suggested that instead of the smaller room along with covered verandah adjoining the same, the bigger room of the size of 12' x 14' in possession of the tenant may be released in favour of the landlady and hence the learned District Judge vide his order dated 20-10-83 changed his order in the following manner. "Hence after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I now change the order dated 12-9-1983. "Hence after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I now change the order dated 12-9-1983. Instead of the room in the south-west corner 10' x 10' and the varandah 5' x 10', the room 12' x 14' adjoining the inner galary of the portion of the landlady is released in favour of the landlady-respondent." It is these orders passed by the District Judge, Jhansi dated 12-9-83 and the subsequent order passed by the District Judge, Jhansi, dated 20-10-83 modifying and changing his earlier order which are in challenge in the present writ petition and these very orders are also challenged by the landlady in the connected writ petition No. 13202 of 1983. 6. Heard Sri B. N. Asthana learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri A. N. Bhargava learned counsel for the landlady respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to change his earlier order dated 12-9-83 and by changing his earlier order and taking out the biggest room in possession of the tenant of the size of 12' x 14', the tenant has in fact, no living room left in her possession as the other two rooms are very small and hence the order passed by the learned Distt. Judge dated 12-10-83 changing his earlier order dated 12-9-83 is liable to be set aside as without jurisdiction. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned District Judge has not considered the subsequent events and relevant evidence while arriving at the finding of bona fide need of the landlady inasmuch as the two grown up daughters of the landlady who have now been married and hence now there remains no bona fide need for the release of the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlady. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri A. N. Bhargava also contended that the orders passed by the learned District Judge in appeal releasing part of the accommodation only in favour of the landlady is liable to be set aside as the landlady's need would not he served by releasing only part of the accommodation and her need could be served only if the entire accommodation in dispute is released in her favour and hence prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the learned District Judge and the case be remanded to the appellate court to decide the case afresh on the question of bona fide need of the landlady. 9. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B. N. Asthana that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to change his earlier order dated 12-9-83 by ordering the release of the biggest room in possession of the tenant of the size of 12' x 14' instead of the smaller room released earlier, I find merit in the submission. The District Judge, in my opinion, had no jurisdiction to review his order and change his earlier order dated 12-9-83 by his subsequent order dated 20-10-83 and hence the subsequent order passed by the District Judge dated 20-10-83 is liable to he quashed as being without jurisdiction. 10. Now coming to the question of bona fide need of the landlady learned counsel for both the sides have challenged the order passed by the District Judge on the question of bona fide need of the landlady. While the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B. N. Asthana contended that there was no bona fide need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation and no part of the accommodation could be released in her favour, the learned counsel for the respondent Sri A. N. Bhargava on the other hand, contended that the need of the landlady was bona fide and genuine for the entire accommodation in dispute. 11. The connotation of the terms `need' and `requirement' postulates that there must he an element of need as opposed to mere desire or wish. In the case of Smt. Gindori Devi v. IInd Addl. Dist. Judge, 1979 (UP) RCC 599 it was observed thus : "It would suffice to mention that a person is said. to need a premises bona fide if he requires it honestly. In the case of Smt. Gindori Devi v. IInd Addl. Dist. Judge, 1979 (UP) RCC 599 it was observed thus : "It would suffice to mention that a person is said. to need a premises bona fide if he requires it honestly. Similarly the word `required' has been interpreted in several cases and the connotation of the said word shows that the landlord must need the premises. In order to succeed in such an application it is not necessary that the landlord must be on the streets. The connotation of the word `need' or `requirement' should not he unnecessarily or artificially extended so as to give it a meaning that the landlord cannot get a premises released unless his requirement is absolute. A Full Bench of this Court construed this to mean 'genuinely or in good faith and conveyed an idea of absence of any intent to deceive (see Chandra Kumar v. District Judge, Varanasi, AIR 1976 All 328 ). It will not he a bona fide requirement if the release is sought loran ulterior purpose or fanciful whim. Thus the word `bona fide' has been held to mean genuinely, sincerely i.e. in good faith in contradiction to mala fide. 12. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is well settled that the court has to take notice of subsequent events during the pendency of the proceedings and since the two grown up daughters of the landlady are now married the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation no more survives. In the case of Ram Shanker Gupta v. VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Farrukhabad, reported in 1984 ARC 50 it was held by Hon'ble N. D. Ojha, J. that if during the pendency of the appeal certain facts are brought on record to show that bona fide need of the landlord has ceased to exist, the court is required to examine them in accordance with law and failure to do so vitiates the order passed on the basis of those facts and further that the parties are entitled to bring the subsequent events to the notice of the court hearing the case. In view of the law laid down above, the question of bona fide need requires to he gone into afresh by the appellate court and both the parties are aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned District Judge on the question of bona fide need. This question of bona fide need will have to he gone into taking into consideration the subsequent events. Both the parties have prayed that the case be remanded back to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship. On perusal of the order passed by the District Judge I find that the question of bona fide need has not been satisfactorily dealt with by the learned District Judge. Moreover, the parties want to lead evidence regarding subsequent events also in support of their case on the question of bona fide need of the landlady. The order passed by the learned District Judge releasing part of the accommodation in the circumstances has been found to be not sustainable in law and hence the orders passed by the learned District Judge dated 12-9-83 and also dated 20-10-83 are quashed. The case is sent hack to the learned District Judge to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The parties would he entitled to lead evidence only in regard to subsequent events before the Appellate Court and in view thereof the Appellate Court would decide the question of bona fide need of the landlady afresh in accordance with law. The tenant Smt. Dyman Prabha Dogra, however, shall not be evicted from the disputed accommodation during ,the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge. 13. In the result both the writ petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the District Judge dated 12-9-83 and 20-10-83 are quashed and the case is sent hack to the District Judge to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. 14. Costs on parties.