JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the constitution is directed against the order dated 4.9.1990 passed by the District Judge in proceedings under Section 22 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. There had been a long drawn litigation between the parties and a number of properties are involved in the present litigation. The dispute relates to premises No. 9, Nemi Road, Dehradun, of which Sri N.R. Anand, husband of respondent No. 2, was the owner. After the death of Shri N.R. Anand on 21.5.1984, respondents 2 to 6 namely, Smt. Raj Kaushalya, widow, Sri Lalit Anand, son, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Anand, son, Smt. Uttra Sawhney and Dr. Swadesh Seth, daughters respectively became the owners/landlords of a portion of the disputed property along with servant quarters, garage, land appurtenant and an orchard. In the release application under Section 2(1)(a) filed by respondents 2 to 6, it has been alleged that they were living with the brother of late Sri N.R. Anand at 64-A, Lytton Road, an accommodation owned by one Smt. Asha Gujral and under the tenancy of Sri G.R. Anand. After the death of Sri N.R. Anand, the relations of the respondents with Sri G.R. Anand became strained and it became necessary for the respondent No. 2 to live separately and to shift in her own house. It has also been stated that respondent No. 4 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Anand is a Dental Surgeon employed at I D.P.L., Virbhadra, Rishikesh who wants to start his private practice at Dehradun. It has further been stated that the tenant Sri P.R. Narang is an affluent person and has got his residential house No. 18, Patel Road, Dehradun, of which the first floor was released in his favour and the tenant can shift to the alternative accommodation. 3. In reply the tenant stated that only ?rd portion of the premises 9, Nemi Road is in occupation of the tenant and the property is owned by the joint Hindu family of which Sri N.R. Anand was the karta and his three brothers Sri G.R. Anand, Sri D.P. Anand and Sri Jai Chand Anand had equal shares. 3. In reply the tenant stated that only ?rd portion of the premises 9, Nemi Road is in occupation of the tenant and the property is owned by the joint Hindu family of which Sri N.R. Anand was the karta and his three brothers Sri G.R. Anand, Sri D.P. Anand and Sri Jai Chand Anand had equal shares. It was stated that ?rd portion of 9, Nemi Road, Dehdradun was got released by Sri N.R. Anand during his life time but instead of utilising the same, it was demolished and sold to one Sri S.K. Ahuja. The respondent No. 2 is comfortably living at 64-A, Lytton Road in her own right and is not correct that she requires the present accommodation for her residential purposes. Sri G.R. Anand was permanently shifted to Rourkela and the other brothers, namely, Shri D.P. Anand and Sri Jai Chand are also living permanently outside Dehradun and have no intention to shift. As regards the respondent No. 3, he is employed at Allahabad and respondent No. 4 is happily settled at I.D.P.L. as a Dental Surgeon and has no intention of settling at Dehradun and the two daughters, namely, Uttra Sawhney and Dr. Swadesh Seth are also residing permanently at Delhi. The need of respondent No. 2 thus is not bonafide and genuine. The alternative accommodation at 18, Patel Road is in a dilapidated condition and as the ground floor is occupied by a tenant for whose eviction the matter is pending before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1152 of 1985, the tenant has no alternative accommodation to shift. 4. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 10.6.1988 rejected the release application and held that the respondent No. 2 has no bonafide need to shift in the disputed accommodation as she is comfortably residing at 64-A, Lytton Road. As regards the comparative hardship, it was held that the tenant had no alternative accommodation. The accommodation at 18, Patel Road is partly occupied by a tenant and unless the entire accommodation is available, the same cannot be demolished and reconstructed. 5. As regards the comparative hardship, it was held that the tenant had no alternative accommodation. The accommodation at 18, Patel Road is partly occupied by a tenant and unless the entire accommodation is available, the same cannot be demolished and reconstructed. 5. The learned District Judge, in appeal by the landlords, allowed the same after holding that the findings in the earlier litigation between the parties do not operate as res judicata and there is bonafide need of respondent No. 2 to shift to her own accommodation and on comparison of hardship, it was held that the tenant would be put to lessor hardship as he can arrange for alternative accommodation even if the property 18, Patel Road is not available. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed these findings on various grounds. The main grounds of attack appear to be that :- firstly, in view of the earlier findings recorded in previous litigation between the parties which had come upto the High Court stage in written petition No. 7794 of 1973 reported in 1980 ALJ 373, the present release petition is barred by the principles of res judicata; secondly, the theory of strained relations for release is concocted and there is no bonafide need as the respondent No. 2 is comfortably living in her own right at 64-A, Lytton Road; thirdly, the release of ?rd portion of the accommodation at Nemi Road in favour of Sri N.R. Anand which was got demolished and later on sold; and fourthly, non-availability of alternative accommodation at 18, Patel Road. 7. Dealing with the first argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has to be seen that the first release application was filed in the year 1975 by Sri N.R. Anand who wanted the release of the accommodation on the ground to stay after retirement from business and his stay as guest or licensee of his brother G.R. Anand at 64-A Lytton Road, Dehradun was not possible. The release application was rejected mainly on two grounds that the landlord was permanently residing at Rourkela where he is engaged in the business as Forest Contractor and secondly even if he required permanent accommodation of his own, the 23/rd portion of No. 9, Nemi Road was already released in his favour which would satisfy his requirement. The release application was rejected mainly on two grounds that the landlord was permanently residing at Rourkela where he is engaged in the business as Forest Contractor and secondly even if he required permanent accommodation of his own, the 23/rd portion of No. 9, Nemi Road was already released in his favour which would satisfy his requirement. The present release application has been filed in the year 1985 after the death of Sri N.R. Anand by his widow and all the sons and daughters mainly on the ground that Smt. Raj Kaushalya who was living at the mercy of her brother-in-law G.R. Anand (brother of Sri N.R. Anand), the relation have become strained and it is not possible for her to live any further in the accommodation. The accommodation at 64-A, Lytton Road is short and after the death of her husband, the other family members who usually visit her and stay with her are not able to do so. The respondent No. 2 is facing great humiliation and difficulty in her stay with Sri G.R. Anand at 64-A, Lytton Road. The objection on behalf of the tenant is that Smt. Raj Kaushalya, respondent No. 2 is living her own right at 64-A, Lytton Road as held in the earlier litigation. 8. The point for consideration is the finding of the earlier litigation that Sri N.R. Anand lived at 64-A, Lytton Road in his own right. The position in this regard is not very clear from the findings recorded in the previous litigation. It is not disputed that the premises 64-A, Lytton Road was allotted in favour of Sri G.R. Anand. The claim of the other side is that the house was given to tenant on rent on behalf of the entire family in the name of Sri G.R. Anand and the entire joint family was living in the disputed house. The Prescribed Authority, in the order dated 21.5.1973, had held that Bungalow No. 64-A, Lytton Road, belonged to Sri N.R. Anand as well and he stayed there whenever he came to Dehradun in his own right. The District Judge affirmed the finding and held that Sri N.R. Anand did not reside at Dehradun and the accommodation already released in his favour at 9, Nemi Road was sufficient to meet the requirement. The District Judge affirmed the finding and held that Sri N.R. Anand did not reside at Dehradun and the accommodation already released in his favour at 9, Nemi Road was sufficient to meet the requirement. This Court approved the findings of the Courts below that the landlord does not genuinely require the accommodation in dispute. On the aforesaid basis, it is being strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondents occupied the accommodation at 64-A, Lytton Road in their own right & this finding having been affirmed in the earlier litigation, the need of the respondents is not bonafide. From the material on record, it is established that Sri N.R. Anand did not occupy the house 64-A, Lytton Road as co-owner as the house belonged to one Smt. Asha Gujral. The other nature of right alleged to be would be that of a tenant, the aforesaid house was allotted in the name of Shri G.R. Anand. This fact has been admitted by the tenant-petitioner in the affidavit of Sri P.R. Narang in paragraph 62 filed in reply to the affidavit of Dr. Rajendra Kumar Anand. However, it is also the case of the tenant that the property was allotted for the joint family and all the brothers stayed there. In this view of the matter, Sri N.R. Anand could not be occupying the premises in his own right as co-tenant as admittedly, it was not a case of inheritance of tenancy and even the joint tenancy would not be there as there is nothing on the record to establish that there was any privity of contract between Sri N.R. Anand and the landlady from the inception of the tenancy. 9. The affidavit of Sri Ashwani Kumar on behalf of Smt. Asha Gujral landlady of 64-A, Lytton Road, in this regard makes the position very clear wherein she has only treated Sri G.R. Anand as her tenant and has refused to accept that Smt. Rai Kaushalya has any right in the accommodation except permissive possession. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place before me any material in which Sri N.R. Anand or respondents 2 to 6 have alleged to be tenants or owners of premises 64-A, Lytton Road. Thus it cannot be said that the findings in the earlier litigation would operate as res judicata or the respondents are estopped from seeking the release of the accommodation. Thus it cannot be said that the findings in the earlier litigation would operate as res judicata or the respondents are estopped from seeking the release of the accommodation. The present release application is on different grounds and the earlier findings would not bar the present release application under Section 21(1)(a). 10. The second argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Raj Kaushalya lived in her own right at 64-A, Lytton Road has also been considered by me and from the material on record, it is established that Sri N.R. Anand and after his death widow was living through the courtesy of Sri G.R. Anand and there were no ownership or tenancy rights possessed by her. 11. The next consideration is with regard to the theory of strained relations which has been attacked by the petitioner. In the earlier case of release by Sri N.R. Anand, the residence of N.R. Anand and his family was considered at 64-A, Lytton Road. After the judgment of this Court in the year 1980 and till the death of Sri N.R. Anand in 1984 no proceedings were initiated for the release of the disputed accommodation. It was only after the death of Sri N.R. Anand, that it may be possible that the relations with the widow and brother-in-law became strained and this background also the case set up in the release application of strained relations cannot be ruled out. To establish the bonafide need, it has to be seen that the respondent No. 2 was living in the rented accommodation along with her brother-in-law. It cannot be doubted that the tenancy was in favour of Sri G.R. Anand who got the telephone and water connections installed in his name, was paying the rent to the landlady and has also got valid ration card. The possession of respondent No. 2 was with the permission of tenant, may be as a family member but as the respondent No. 2 was not possessing any legal right to remain in possession, it may be that on account of some family dispute, the relations might have become strained which may have necessitated the eviction from the premises 64-A, Lytton Road and for that reason the need of release of the disputed accommodation. The findings of the Appellate Court for the bonafide need of respondent No. 2 cannot be treated to be arbitrary or based on extraneous considerations or mere desire. The learned District Judge has noted various decisions on the word 'bonafide' and has also mentioned the case of Mst. Bega Begam and others v. Abdul Ahad Khan, 1986 SCFBRC 346. In the said decision, it has been held as under :- "The expression "reasonable requirement" undoubtedly postulates that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. The connotation of the term 'need' or 'requirement' should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained so as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds." 12. A Full Bench decision of this Court construed this phrase as genuinely or in good faith and conveying an idea of absence of any intent to deceive. Refer Chand Kumar Shah v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1976(2) ALR 95 (FB). It is also established that Sri G.R. Anand is still occupying 64-A, Lytton Road and the respondent No. 2 was not in exclusive possession of the property. The mere fact that Sri G.R. Anand did not come forward to indicate his desire for vacation of the premises 64-A, Lytton Road or the strained relations between Sri G.R. Anand and Smt. Raj Kaushalya would not lead to the conclusion that Sri G.R. Anand did not require the premises or relations were cordial and for that reason the need of Smt. Raj Kaushalya, respondent No. 2, to shift to her own house was merely an excuse for the release of the property. 13. In the circumstances stated above, the landlady could not be compelled to live at the mercy of her brother-in-law and to deprive her to live in her own house independently with her sons and daughter-in-law. 13. In the circumstances stated above, the landlady could not be compelled to live at the mercy of her brother-in-law and to deprive her to live in her own house independently with her sons and daughter-in-law. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the desire of an old lady to live in her own house independently during her life time cannot be treated to be a mere wish or desire. It may also be noticed that the other brothers of Sri G.R. Anand and their family also never claimed any independent right of their residence in this accommodation. On the other hand, the brothers-in-law of Smt. Raj Kaushalya, Sri Jai Chand Anand and Sri D.P. Anand, in order to claim ownership rights at 9, Nemi Road moved applications for impladment as parties to the present release application. 14. In the other proceeding initiated by one Satya Pal and Balbir for allotment of 64-A, Lytton Road, it has come on the record that Sri N.R. Anand never claimed any independent legal right of stay either as owner as or as tenant. Of course the possession of Sri N.R. Anand as family member was noticed by the authorities. Even if for argument sake, the possession was permissible to the brother by Sri G.R. Anand, it extinguished after his death. The widow Smt. Raj Kaushalya and brother-in-law Sir G.R. Anand did not pull on well to permit Smt. Raj Kaushalya to indefinitely occupy and share the house. I am of the opinion that as there is no material on record to establish any independent right of occupation of 64-A, Lytton Road by Smt. Raj Kaushalya, her need for the release of this disputed accommodation has been rightly found to be bonafide and genuine by the learned District Judge and I am in full agreement with the findings of fact recorded in this regard. 15. The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the release of ?rd portion of the accommodation at 9, Nemi Road, the same was got demolished and sold would also not make any effect so as to make the need for the disputed accommodation disappear. The release of ?rd portion of the accommodation was obtained on different grounds in the year 1978 by Sri N.R. Anand who was then alive and thereafter, in the year 1979 sold the same. The release of ?rd portion of the accommodation was obtained on different grounds in the year 1978 by Sri N.R. Anand who was then alive and thereafter, in the year 1979 sold the same. The present release application has been made after the death of Sri N.R. Anand and after more than five years on different reasons which have cropped up after the death of Sri N.R. Anand. In these circumstances, even if part of the property which was in dilapidated condition was sold, it cannot be said that the present release application is not bonafide. If the present grounds established bonafide need of the landlady to occupy the house, the sale of the property by her husband 6 years back would not come in the way for the release of the disputed accommodation. 16. The last argument with regard to the property 18, Patel Road owned by the tenant requires consideration as even in the previous litigation, a concession was made on behalf of the tenant that in the event of this property being released, he would vacate the disputed property. It has also to be seen as to whether this offer made in the year 1980 would debar the consideration of the present release application or not. From the facts, it would emerge that although the property 18, Patel road has been released by the authorities below in favour of the petitioner, but the matter is pending before this Court since 1985 being Writ Petition No. 11564 of 1985. Some effort was made by me to wait for the decision of the aforesaid writ petition but it appears that it would not be possible in the near future although the petitioner has not to be blamed for the delay. At this stage it has also to be considered as to whether the present release application in respect of the disputed accommodation could be considered and disposed of irrespective of the availability of House No. 18, Patel Road. The need of the landlady has been found to be bonafide and genuine. It has came on the record that the tenant is a man of means and there appears to be no reason why he has not made any effort for the search of an alternative accommodation during this period specially when he assessed that House No. 18, Patel Road would not be available. It has came on the record that the tenant is a man of means and there appears to be no reason why he has not made any effort for the search of an alternative accommodation during this period specially when he assessed that House No. 18, Patel Road would not be available. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the tenant made any effort for the search of an alternative accommodation which would be a very relevant consideration for comparing the hardship of the landlord and the tenant. Refer N.S. Datta v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1984(1) ARC 11 and Mst. Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan (supra). Apart from this it is also established that the tenant has received possession of the first floor accommodation and a Barasati at the ground floor of 18, Patel Road. It may be that the first floor accommodation is fit for human habitation for which the petitioner himself is responsible to have demolished the roof but there appears to be no reason why inspite of sufficient lapse of time of 10 years he has not been able to make such constructions to arrange for his alternate accommodation. This would be expecting rather too much that the tenant without making any arrangement for alternative accommodation either at his own house at 18, Patel Road or at such other accommodation which may be available in the township, is compelling the old landlady to stay in a rented house under the tenancy of her brother-in-law without any independent right at the mercy of the tenant. To honour the undertaking given in the year 1980, the petitioner should have taken some measures to arrange alternative accommodation. Thus both the findings recorded by the Appellate Court regarding the bonafide need of the respondents and greater hardship to them appears to be in accordance with law. 17. Before parting with the case, I must appreciate that the learned District Judge has taken great pains in considering the material on record and giving elaborate reasons for judicious finding to record the bonafide need and greater hardship in favour of the respondents. 18. For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. 18. For the reasons stated above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner be allowed three months' time to vacate the premises, provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in this regard before the Prescribed Authority within 15 days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.