JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This is tenant's petition arising form proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972), for short, Act. The petitioner has lost before the Prescribed Authority as well as before the Appellate Court. The dispute in the petition pertains to portion of house No. 69 situate within the municipal limits of district Sitapur. 2. The landlord-opposite party sought release of the accommodation in question on the following allegations :- "The accommodation in question was allotted to the father of the tenant petitioners on 23rd May, 1951. He died and the petitioner succeeded to his tenancy rights. At the time the petitioner's father was inducted into the accommodation in question, the opposite party's family comprised himself, his wife, one son and two daughters. At that time all the children were minor. By the year 1988, when the application was moved, the family grew in size and came to comprise - (1) landlord himself (2) his wife, (3) his six grown up sons, the eldest being 24 years old and the youngest 21 years old, (4) three daughters-in-law and (5) five grand children making the total of 16. The daughter had been married. When the married and the unmarried sons and daughter and their families come to stay with the landlord he experiences difficulty in accommodating them all. the accommodation available with him comprises three rooms, one office room, kitchen, bath room, latrine and two store rooms. He was retired Principal of an Intermediate College and he intended to start coaching classes in order to augment his income which has dwindled on account of his retirement. The accommodation in question was, thus, required for accommodation the family members and for running coaching classes. The accommodation occupied by the tenant-petitioners was adjacent to the accommodation occupied by the landlord and only a lane intervened between the two accommodations. The accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner comprised six rooms, one kothri, one store-room, tin shed, latrine and bath room. The family of the petitioner was small and he could take on rent a house available in the Avas Vikas Colony or in any other locality." 3. The petitioner denied the need of the landlord-opposite party, but he did not deny the size of the landlord's family. The family of the petitioner was small and he could take on rent a house available in the Avas Vikas Colony or in any other locality." 3. The petitioner denied the need of the landlord-opposite party, but he did not deny the size of the landlord's family. He however, stated that the accommodation at the disposal of the landlord-opposite party was sufficient for his requirements and it comprised not three rooms and one office room as alleged, but comprised eight rooms. Five rooms were said to be in the southern portion of the landlord's house. Regarding his sons, it was stated that except the youngest son, the remaining sons resided outside Sitapur in connection with their employment. The need to run coaching classes was denied with the allegation that the landlord had sufficient income of his own and his sons were all employed. It was also asserted that the release of the accommodation in question, which was residential accommodation, couuld not be sought for commercial activity like running coaching classes. The petitioner asserted that he had no accommodation of his own at Sitapur where he might shift to and on this basis it was claimed that his need for the accommodation in question was greater than of the landlord. 4. In support of their respective cases, the parties filed affidavits and documentary evidence. On an appraisement of the said evidence, the Prescribed Authority come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was genuine and bonafide and the landlord would suffer greater hardship if the application was rejected than the petitioner would suffer if the application was allowed. These findings have been confirmed in appeal by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Sitapur. 5. In his judgment, the learned Additional District Judge has observed that there was no dispute regarding the size of the landlord' family. He has stated that out of six sons, four were employed outside Sitapur and were at Lucknow, but he did not permanently stay at Lucknow and was a daily passenger between Sitapur and Lucknow. Regarding sixth son it has been stated that he was unemployed and resided at Sitapur along with the landlord-opposite party. He has stated that out of six sons, four were employed outside Sitapur and were at Lucknow, but he did not permanently stay at Lucknow and was a daily passenger between Sitapur and Lucknow. Regarding sixth son it has been stated that he was unemployed and resided at Sitapur along with the landlord-opposite party. After making this statement regarding family of the landlord, it has been stated that his sons and daughters who were normally staying outside Sitapur visited Sitapur and stayed with the landlord for long periods and this fact could not be ignored in taking into account the requirement of the landlord. In coming to this conclusion the learned Additional District Judge has relied upon a decision of the Court in Krishna Kumar Srivastava v. VI Additional District Judge, Allahabad and other, 1985(2) ARC 271. 6. After making the above observation regarding the size of the landlord's family and the landlord's requirement to accommodate them, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to consider the accommodation available with the landlord. He has observed that there are only three bed rooms and one office room along with ancilary accommodation in the premises occupied by the landlord. Regarding the five room pointed out by the tenant, it has been stated that they were not in occupation of the landlord and in occupation of tenants, which was established from the extract of the Assessment-register. Three rooms and one office room were found to be insufficient for the requirements of the landlord taking into account his status and size of the family. 7. The tenant's plea that release of residential accommodation could not be sought for commercial purpose has been negatived with the observation that the dominant purpose of the present release was not commercial but residential. 8. The learned Additional District Judge thereafter proceeded to compare the hardships of the tenant and the landlord. He has observed that the need of the landlord was pressing and that the tenant would indeed suffer inconveniance in the event of his evcition but it was not his case that alternative accommodation is not available at Sitapur on reasonable rent. It has further been observed that the tenant has not shown that he made any sincere effort to obtain alternative accommodation to shift therein. After recording this finding, he concurred with the findings, recorded by the Prescribed Authority and acordingly rejected the appeal. It has further been observed that the tenant has not shown that he made any sincere effort to obtain alternative accommodation to shift therein. After recording this finding, he concurred with the findings, recorded by the Prescribed Authority and acordingly rejected the appeal. Against this rejection, the tenant has approached this Court through the instanct writ petition. 9. Shri P.K. Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding recorded by the Court below that the dominant purpose was not commercial is not correct inasmuch as the size of the family of the landlord had grown even before he retired from service but no application under Section 1 was made prior to retirement. The learned Counsel submits that if in fact additional accommodation was required for accommodating the allegedly big family, application should have been made much earlier. The need of the landlord is to be examined on the date the application is filed and if on that date the need is found to be bonafide and genuine, the application cannot be rejected on the mere ground that it could have been made earlier also. If the landlord has tolerated discomfort for a number of years, it does not mean that he must be deprived of comfort for all times to come. It is not the case of the landlord that most of the rooms in the accommodation in question will be required for coaching purposes. His case on the other hand is that additional accommodation is primarily required for the enlarged family. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the finding for fact recorder by the learned Additional District Judge on the question of dominant purpose in obtaining release does not call for any interference. 10. With reference to AIR 1990 SC 1376 : 1990 RCFBRC 265 (SC), Ramesh v. A. Balreddy, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that application under Section 21 of the Act could notbe allowed on the fanciful wish of the landlord. The learned Counsel is correct in making the submission but, in my opinion, the application in the present case is not based on fanciful wish. The landlord indicated the size of the family and accommodation available with him and then asserted his requirement, referring indeed to his status. According to the learned Counsel, status is irrelevant in considering the question of requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The landlord indicated the size of the family and accommodation available with him and then asserted his requirement, referring indeed to his status. According to the learned Counsel, status is irrelevant in considering the question of requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. I am unable to agree with this submission of the learned Counsel. The requirements do very from person to person and family to family. One person may be able to adjust a large family in a comparatively small accommodation, but the same may not be possible for another set of persons. In the present case, the landlord indicated that he was retired Principal of an intermediate college and his sons are also well placed in life. The landlord further stated that they visited him and proper accommodation was required for receiving visitors and guests. I am of the opinion that these factors cannot be ignored in making assessment of bonafide need. 11. It was then submitted that the two authorities below committed manifest error inasmuch as they did not proceed to consider whether the need of the landlord could be satisfied by releasing only a portion of the accommodation in question instead of the entire accommodation. This is a factual matter and should have been placed by the petitioner before the two authorities below. When the petitioner did not make any assertion of this nature, the only inference that can be drawn is that either the accommodation in question is not capable of apportionment or the petitioner does not desireit. Even if I were to consider the question of apportionment, I find that in view of the size of the landlord's family the entire accommodation in possession of the petitionor will be required by the landlord for satisfying his need. Accordingly, there is no question of directing apportionment of the accommodation in question between the petitioner and the landlord-opposite party. 12. In my opinion, the finding recorder by the Court below have the support of authorities and, therefore, they do not call for any interference. I may refer to a few of them cited by the learned Counsel : (1) In Dr B.N. Joshi v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1985(2) ARC 206, it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the status of the parties cannot be overlooked while considering the question of bonafide requirement. I may refer to a few of them cited by the learned Counsel : (1) In Dr B.N. Joshi v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1985(2) ARC 206, it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the status of the parties cannot be overlooked while considering the question of bonafide requirement. (2) In Krishna Kumar Srivastava v. VIth Adl. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1989(2) ARC 271, it was held that married daughters, son-in-law and son residing outside could not be ignored in considering the question of bonafide requirement as these persons usually come and stay with the head of the family. (3) In M/s Gold Field Mercantile Company and others v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1982(1) ARC 664, it was held that if part of the building is being used for residential purpose and another part for business purpose, then the test for determining the nature of its user is to see as to what is the dominant purpose for which it is being used. This authority is relevant on the finding recorded by the Court below on the question of dominant proposed use of the accommodation in question. (4) In Munni Lal and others v. Prescribed Authority and others, 1981 ARC 470, it was held by the Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that finding on question of bonafide need arrived at on appraisement of evidence was one of fact which could not be interfered with in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution even if the High Court on re-appraisement of evidence were to come to a contrary conclusion. 13. In view of the above, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the landlord-opposite party No. 3. Interim order if any, operating, shall stand discharged. The petitioner is, however, allowed two months time to vacate the accommodation in question. If the accommodation is not vacated on the expiry of said period, it will be open to the landlord- opposite party to obtain possession of the accommodation in question by executing the order.