JUDGMENT M.P.Singh, J. 1. Petitioner is the owner and landlady of house no. 48, Parmiyanpurwa, Khoura, Nawabganj, district Kanpur. 2. The present writ petition arises out of the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 initiated by the petitioner. The dispute relates to a portion of the house which was let out to opposite party no. 2. The application for release was filed on the ground that the petitioner lives in a portion of the said house and the accommodation at her disposal comprises of two rooms, two varandas, open courtyard, bath-room, kitchen and roof. She had let out only one room to opposite party no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. The family of the petitioner consisted of herself, her husband, a married son, daughter-in-law and two unmarried grown-up daughters. She being a religious lady had installed deity in a room of the premises. She also owns 23 Bighas of agricultural land and in one room she stores grain for the whole year which is not available for residential purposes. Thus, the total accommodation left with her for residential purposes is only one room, measuring 19 x 12 feet on the first floor, which is quite insufficient to accommodate such a big family. 3. The landlady further asserted that opposite party no. 2 was a Constable in Police-Force posted at Etawah. He could keep his family with him there. 4. The said application was contested by the tenant (opposite party no. 2). He stated that the accommodation in his tenancy was more than one room as disclosed in the application. According to him he was in possession of one room, Varanda and open roof. He further stated that accommodation in possession of the landlady was quite sufficient. She did not need any additional accommodation. He was posted in Dacoity Operation Area where he could not keep his family with him. Further, there was no educational facilities at the place of his posting. His children aged 10, 8, 6 and 2 years respectively were receiving education in Adarsh Vidyalaya Niketan, Nawab- ganj, Kanpur. The prescribed authority, on a consideration of the evidence on record, allowed the release application holding :- (1) That the need of the landlady was bonafide and genuine; and (2) That greater hardship would be caused to the landlady in case the application was not allowed. 5. The prescribed authority, on a consideration of the evidence on record, allowed the release application holding :- (1) That the need of the landlady was bonafide and genuine; and (2) That greater hardship would be caused to the landlady in case the application was not allowed. 5. Being aggrieved the tenant went in appeal. 6. The appellate-court upheld both the findings recorded by prescribed authority on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship, but allowed the appeal of the tenant on the ground that the release application was only with regard to a part of the rented accommodation, and as such it was not maintainable. It is against this order of the appellate authority that the present writ petition has been filed by the landlady. 7. Heard Sri A. N. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yatindra Singh appearing for the respondent. 8. The only question to be considered in this petition is whether release application for a part of the accommodation is maintainable or not ? Section 21 (1) of the Act reads as follows : "The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely....." 9. The learned Additional District Judge has not cared to look into the section itself. Had he done so, then the result of the appeal would have been different. In this case, the case of the landlady was that she had let out only one room to the tenant, but the tenant has raised a different controversy so far as the total accommodation is concerned. This case can be decided without going into the controversy whether the tenant was let out only one room or more than that. Even the case of the tenant is accepted, it will not make any difference because the landlady could move application for release even for a part of the accommodation. 10. In a case Sita Ram v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, 1988 (2) ARC 70 learned single Judge of this Court held as follows :- "From the above provision, it is clear that the prescribed authority could order eviction of a tenant from the building under tenanoy or any specified part thereof." In another case Gauhar Hasan v. Addl. 10. In a case Sita Ram v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, 1988 (2) ARC 70 learned single Judge of this Court held as follows :- "From the above provision, it is clear that the prescribed authority could order eviction of a tenant from the building under tenanoy or any specified part thereof." In another case Gauhar Hasan v. Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur 1981 ARC 226, it was held that ;- "Section 21 of the Act clearly provides that the prescribed authority may on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order eviction of tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof. The Act has now given right to the landlord to apply for even a part of the accommodation under the tenancy of a tenant. In the circumstances, it was open to respondent no. 3 to apply for the release of a portion of the shop adjacent to the shop in dispute which was lying vacant..." 11. This law is well settled now and there is no scope for any further controversy. 12. Being in full respectful agreement with the views of the learned Judges I hold that the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record in as much as the application for release even for a part of the accommodation in possession of the tenant, is maintainable. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 19-11-1958 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur is set aside, and the application for release stands allowed. There shall be no order so as to costs.