JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - The present petition is directed against the order of Ist Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dated 1.8.1988 whereby the release application of the landlord under Section 21(I)(a) of the Act in respect of premises No. 52, Maliyan Mohalla, Dehradun, consisting of two rooms in the ground floor, has been rejected. 2. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application and found that the need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and on comparison of hardship the landlord would be put to greater hardship. The tenant has acquired an accommodation at Patelnagar and the alternative accommodation is available to them. 3. The disputed accommodation in possession of the tenant consists of two rooms each measuring 8' x 10', one kitchen, store, bath room, latrine and common courtyard etc. The accommodation of the landlord in the same house comprised of two rooms each measuring 8' x 10', one verandah on ground floor, two rooms measuring 9' x 11' and 20' x 10', one small kitchen, both room, latrine, open space and courtyard on the first floor. The family of the landlord consists of sixteen members. It is established that the accommodation on the first floor consisting of one room measuring 20' x 10', is in occupation of Saroj Kumar and his wife and one more room is needed for three children. The two married sons namely Sri Anil Kumar and Mukesh Kumar with the family of Anil Kumar consisting of three members and with the family of Mukesh Kumar consisting of two members, needed two separate rooms. The requirement for the son Raj Kumar, who is of marriageable age, widowed mother Smt. Sharbati Devi and daughter Alka Gupta, cannot be met by the present accommodation available with the landlord. 4. The appellate Court held that the total five rooms are needed for living of the above strength of the family of the landlord. In my opinion, considering the accommodation available with the landlord, the number of family members their present need of accommodation as also their growing need, which should also be relevant consideration, in considering the bonafide need, the accommodation at their disposal is wholly insufficient. The learned Judge has committed manifest error in holding that five rooms would be sufficient to accommodate the entire family. There are nine adult members whose occupation cannot be denied along with four children. The learned Judge has committed manifest error in holding that five rooms would be sufficient to accommodate the entire family. There are nine adult members whose occupation cannot be denied along with four children. In my opinion the finding, in these circumstances, by the learned Judge, that the landlord does not require any additional accommodation, cannot be sustained. The finding of the Learned Judge that the need of the landlord is not bonafide and genuine, is not borne at from the material on record and is manifestly erroneous. 5. It has been established that the accommodation at Patelnagar was owned by Smt. Vidyawati and is occupied by her sons Shiv Kumar and Harish Chandra. It has been tried to restablish that Smt. Vidyawati Devi along with his son Sunil Kumar are still living in the disputed accommodation. Even if that be so, the tenants have acquired additional accommodation of their own and it would be a good ground to hold that they would be put to lesser hardship in comparison of the landlord. Even otherwise, there is no material or record that the tenant lessee made any effort for any alternative accommodation and it could lay heavily against them in comparison of the hardships. Merely because the tenants are living since long, the learned Judge was not correct in holding that the balance of convenience would be in their favour. Learned Judge was also not correct in holding that as the landlord has offered a portion of the accommodation vacated by the tenant Om Prakash to the petitioner, the landlord has appreciated the hardship of the tenant. Learned Judge has wrongly held that even though the tenants have acquired accommodation at Patelnagar but as it is not sufficient for the family of two sons, it would not be correct to hold that the tenants have acquired the accommodation. Once it is established that the tenant has acquired accommodation in accordance with Section 21(1) Explanation I, sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation would not be a matter for consideration. The learned Judge erred in holding that the tenant's widow and her son, who has been recently married cannot be left at the mercy of other married son, who has acquired the property in the name of their wife at Patelnagar and particularly when property consists of only two rooms and as such the alternative accommodation is not available to them. 6. 6. For the aforesaid reasons I am inclined to allow the petition. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Ist Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dated 1.8.1988 in Rent Control Appeal No. 127 of 1986 is quashed.