JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - By this petition the landlord has challenged the order dated 20.8.1983 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, setting aside the order dated 1.6.1982 passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the application of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of residential accommodation situate in Mohalla Chowk Bazar, Bulandshahr. 2. In the release application it has been alleged that partition between the brothers of the applicant took place in 1969 and in pursuance of the partition decree dated 2.9.1969 the disputed property came in the share of the applicant. One Noor Jahan was occupying the disputed property and after her death the disputed property is in occupation of respondent No. 2 Smt. Shamim Bano, who claims to be daughter of Noor Jahan. 3. It has been alleged that after the partition the petitioner was residing with the family of his younger brother Sri Shri Ram, who died in the year 197(sic) and at that time his eldest son was only twelve years of age. The petitioner started living in the accommodation, which was allotted to Sri Ram, but he had vacated the same. In the meantime, he filed an application for release against one tenant Sri Gopal Nidhi. The said application was ejected on the ground that the family partition was not proved to be genuine and, as such, the petitioner was not living with his brother and there was no need for any independent accommodation. 4. The order dated 9.5.1977 was challenged in appeal and a compromise was effected between the parties and as such, the findings in the aforesaid case did not attain finality. The petitioner, thereafter in the year 1988 started living with his other brother Mukat Lal. But again he has been compelled to make his own arrangement and in February, 1981 Noor Jahan died. The present application for release was filed on 30.6.1981. It has also been alleged that the respondent No. 2 was previously residing at Hapur, Purana Bazar, Mohalla Munsafi along with her three daughters and she has alternative accommodation to stay as also she has the land and house in village Giraura. 5. The respondent No. 2 contested the said application and denied the allegations made therein. It has also been alleged that the respondent No. 2 was previously residing at Hapur, Purana Bazar, Mohalla Munsafi along with her three daughters and she has alternative accommodation to stay as also she has the land and house in village Giraura. 5. The respondent No. 2 contested the said application and denied the allegations made therein. It was alleged that she was living in the disputed premises along with her daughter during the life time of Noor Jahan and she has no house at Hapur nor she ever resided at Hapur. The alleged partition of 1969 has already been held to be fictitious and collusive in case No. 2 of 1976 by order dated 9.5.1977. The petitioner is living jointly with his brother, who is aged about seventy years, issueless and his wife is also not alive. It has further been alleged that the petitioner has other properties in Mohalla Brahmpuri, Mohalla Shitalganj and Mohalla Fatehganj. The property in Mohalla Fatehganj has recently been purchased and the same has been let out to the tenant. The need of the petitioner is not bonafide and genuine and the respondent No. 2 would be put to greater hardship, as she has no other accommodation to live. 6. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application and held that the petitioner had bonafide and genuine need and on comparison of hardship the tenant would be put to lesser hardship as he has an alternative accommodation in village Giraura. 7. Learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, allowed the appeal of the tenant by order dated 20.8.1983 and it has been held that family partition between Damodar and his brother was collusive and no such partition had actually taken place between his brothers and they are still living jointly. The findings in case No. 2 of 1976 decided by order dated 9.5.1977 are binding on the petitioner. The alleged partition or family settlement is further disproved by the petitioner's living with his brother and nephew. There is nothing on record to indicate that the relations have become strained or they are compelling the petitioner to vacate the accommodation occupied by him. It was further held that the petitioner has purchased property in Mohalla Fatehganj and has let out the same to the tenant. There is nothing on record to indicate that the relations have become strained or they are compelling the petitioner to vacate the accommodation occupied by him. It was further held that the petitioner has purchased property in Mohalla Fatehganj and has let out the same to the tenant. For the aforesaid reasons it was held that the petitioner had no bonafide and genuine need for accommodation and the findings of the prescribed authority were set aside. 8. As regards the respective hardship, it is established that the respondent No. 2 does not possess any accommodation at Hapur and she has no other accommodation except the disputed accommodation for her residential purposes. 9. From the material on record it is not established that she is living at Hapur. On the other hand the petitioner is very well to do person owning a large number of properties and residing with his brother Sri Mukat Lal in the Joint Hindu Family property. The tenant would be put to greater hardship, in the circumstances of the case. 10. The order of the appellate authority has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that it was established that there was family partition and such co-sharers started realising rent in respect of the accommodation which fell in his share. This was established by the fact that the respondent No. 2 herself was paying rent exclusively to the petitioner. The affidavits of all co-sharers fully establish that the partition was given effect to and each of the co-sharers started realising rent from the tenants of the accommodation which was allotted in the said partition. The findings of the appellate authority with regard to the purchase of property in Mohalla Fatehganj was also assailed on the ground that the petitioner has only th share and there was a shop on the ground floor and one Bala Khana on the first floor, which was occupied by the tenant Suresh Chandra Shanti Swaroop. The appellate authority thus erred in holding that as he was living jointly with his brother and nephew in HUF property there was no independent need of the accommodation for the old man of seventy years of age to live separately. 11. The appellate authority thus erred in holding that as he was living jointly with his brother and nephew in HUF property there was no independent need of the accommodation for the old man of seventy years of age to live separately. 11. With regard to the comparison of hardship it has been alleged that the appellate authority grossly erred in holding that the respondent No. 2 had no alternative accommodation and the alleged accommodation at Hapur has not been established to be occupied by her, as neither any assessment of the Nagarpalika, Hapur, has been filed nor there is any cogent evidence to establish that she is living at Hapur. The appellate authority did not consider the affidavits of Sri Ved Prakash and Sri Vinod Kumar, the residents of Hapur, who have deposed that the respondent No. 2 was living at Hapur along with her daughters. The petitioner further alleged that the other accommodations are occupied by the tenants and the petitioner can make a choice for release of the accommodation, suitable to him. The respondent No. 2 can shift to village Giraura where she can manage the property and would not be put to any hardship. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the findings of the appellate authority and alleged that the petitioner had no need whatsoever as he is an old man of seventy years without any issue and his wife had also died. The petitioner is living comfortably with his brother, and nephew in the Joint Hindu Family property. The alleged partition is fictitious and has been manipulated for the purposes of the case. The respondent No. 2 would be thrown on the street alongwith her daughter as she has no other accommodation to live. 13. I have considered the material on record and the findings recorded by the appellate authority. In my opinion the learned Judge was not correct in holding that the family partition was collusive and no partition had actually taken place between the brothers and they are still living jointly. It cannot be denied that partition decree was obtained in suit No. 490 of 1969, Mukat Lal v. Damodar Swarup, from the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Bulandshahr. In my opinion the learned Judge was not correct in holding that the family partition was collusive and no partition had actually taken place between the brothers and they are still living jointly. It cannot be denied that partition decree was obtained in suit No. 490 of 1969, Mukat Lal v. Damodar Swarup, from the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Bulandshahr. It is also established from the material on record and affidavits of other co-sharers that some family partition had taken place and in pursuance thereof each of the co-sharers is in occupation of the share allotted to him and they are realising rent from their respective properties which are occupied by the tenants. 14. In the present case the rent is also paid by the respondent No. 2 exclusively to the petitioner and at no point of time she has disputed that there are other co-sharers or any other co-sharer has demanded any rent from her. Merely because in Rent Case No. 2 of 1976, the Prescribed Authority recorded some findings that the petition was not collusive, could not mean that even though decree for partition was stamped and partition have been acted upon and even respondent No. 2 has recognised the petitioner to be the sole landlord, it could be alleged that there is no partition and the petitioner is living jointly with his brother. The petitioner has given plausible explanation for sharing the accommodation along with his brother and nephew but it is quite possible and there is nothing to dispute the allegation that the brother and nephew are now compelling to vacate the premises and for that reason he had taken recourse to the present proceeding. 15. This is further established from the fact that he initiated these proceedings only in the year 1981 after the death of Noor Jahan and not before as earlier there was no necessity to live separately. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner and in my opinion the learned Judge committed manifest error of law in holding that merely because he was living with his brother and nephew there was no partition and he was not compelled to occupy his own share of property. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner and in my opinion the learned Judge committed manifest error of law in holding that merely because he was living with his brother and nephew there was no partition and he was not compelled to occupy his own share of property. It may be that the partition of the property and business had taken place but the relations were cordial and the petitioner was allowed to share the accommodation with the brothers, which later on became strained. 16. As regards the finding of the learned Judge that the petitioners had purchased the property in Fatehganj and had let out the same and in case he was in the need of accommodation he could have occupied the same, is also not borne out from the material on record. The petitioner has specifically brought this material on record to establish that he had th share and the property was purchased along with the wife of Shri Ram & Sri Sushil Kumar. It is also established from the record that this property consisted of shop on the ground floor and one Bala Khana on the first floor which was occupied by the tenant Suresh Chandra Shanti Swaroop from before and is still in occupation as tenant. The other reason given for rejecting the bonafide and genuine need of the petitioner was that he is seventy years of age, without any issue and is living all alone and can share the Joint Hindu accommodation with his brother and nephew. Even this reason cannot be justified as a person of any age if wants to live separately cannot be denied this right and may be compelled to live jointly and share some body's else accommodation. It may be pious desire of a old man to enjoy independent and peaceful living for rest of his life. There is no material on record to disprove the allegations that the petitioner is now being forced by his brother and nephew to vacate the accommodation, which he was sharing and in these circumstances I am of the opinion that the petition has bonafide and genuine need. 17. As regards the comparative hardship merely because the tenant has no other alternative accommodation she cannot be allowed to continue. In every case the tenant is put to hardship in case the accommodation has to be vacated. 17. As regards the comparative hardship merely because the tenant has no other alternative accommodation she cannot be allowed to continue. In every case the tenant is put to hardship in case the accommodation has to be vacated. The tenant has to search an alternative accommodation and there is no material on record to establish that the tenant had made any effort to search the alternative accommodation or that no alternative accommodation was available. This is itself weighed heavily against the tenant in comparing the hardship. It cannot be denied that the respondent No. 2 has some property in the village Giraura, which she manages. 18. For the aforesaid reasons the petitioner has also established greater hardship in his favour than the tenant. 19. In the end the submission with regard to the maintainability of application under Section 21 of the Act against the respondent No. 2 is also established in favour of the petitioner as the relationship of landlord and tenant has been accepted by him, as also payment of rent by the respondent No. 2. Ignorance of the landlord that the respondent No. 2 is daughter of Noor Jahan, the former tenant is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner has not treated her as tenant and the application under Section 21 of the Act would not be maintainable. No other point was argued by the learned Counsel for the parties. 20. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the 4th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr dated 20.8.1983 in Rent Control Appeal No. 22 of 1982 is set aside. 21. Considering the long occupation of the residential accommodation by the petitioner as also to enable her search the alternative accommodation it would be in the interest of justice that the respondent No. 2 be allowed four months time to vacate the disputed premises provided she gives an undertaking to deliver vacqant and peaceful possession to the landlord within three weeks after obtaining certified copy of this order. In case the undertaking is not furnished this indulgence would not be available to the respondent No. 2.