JUDGMENT : - A.B.Srivastava, J. 1. BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged an order dated 20-10-1990 of the IVth Additional District Judge Saharanpur whereby modifying the order of the prescribed authority he allowed the application under section 21 (J) (a) of Act 13 of 1972 in toto. 2. THE release application was filed by the landlords with allegations that Sita Ram is the tenant of the premises described la Schedule A of the release application whereas late Radhey Shyam was the tenant in the premises described in Schedule-B. After the death of Radhey Shyam, his widow and two of the sons, the present petitioners, who were residing with him inherited the said tenancy rights. THE other heirs of Radhey Shyam 'respondent nos. 7 to 9' were impleaded in the release application to avoid any future complications. THE property in Schedule-C of the release application has not been in the tenancy of any of the aforesaid persons, but since in reply to a notice served by the landlords, Sita Ram as well as the heirs of Radhey Shyam, claimed the same also to be in their tenancy. THE landlord filed release application taking the said property also to be in their tenancy. On the land in schedule-C there earlier was a house which having fallen, the land was lying vacant as ruing of the house. It was further alleged that the landlords have got a large family consisting of sixteen persons in all, three of them being couples and their sons and daughters being under education. All the three branches have separate mess and residence. This entire family is residing in a house situate towards south of the premises in question which consists of four rooms and six Kotharies. They have no provision for kitchen drawing room, quest room or any study room. Their family being growing one, they are facing great hardship due to paucity of accommodation, on the request of the landlords, the tenants assured to vacate the premises in Schedule-A and B soon after making alternative arrangements. They have no provision for kitchen drawing room, quest room or any study room. Their family being growing one, they are facing great hardship due to paucity of accommodation, on the request of the landlords, the tenants assured to vacate the premises in Schedule-A and B soon after making alternative arrangements. However, when despite lapse of six months, they did not do anything in that direction, the landlords tried to start miking some constructions on the property in schedule-C to minimise their hardship, but these tenants obstructed to their doing so, thereupon a notice was given by the landlord in which as stated above, the property in Schedule-C was also claimed by the other side to be in their tenancy. Accordingly under these circumstances the release application was filed on the ground of pressing and bonafide requirement of the landlords for occupying the property in Schedule A. IB, and C, The release application was contested by the present petitioners with allegations that the premise* in the tenancy of Sita Ram and late Radhey Shyam being separate and distinct, one release application in respect of the entire property is not maintainable. They further pleaded that the property in Schedule-C is not a separate property rather constitutes one unit along with rest of the property in dispute. It is wrong to say that same is not in their tenancy. They further pleaded that the house no. 9/180 Harnathpura Saharanpur city in the possession of the landlord is house consisting of 14 rooms, area and dimensions of which has not been correctly disclosed by the landlords. The said accommodation is quite sufficient to meet the requirements of the landlords and their other family members, besides this the landlords have also concealed the other accommodation In their possession The tenants on the other hand have a large family and have no other accommodation to fall back upon and will suffer great hardship if the release is allowed against them. 3. 3. THE prescribed authority came to the conclusion that considering the size of the family of the landlords and the accommodation at present at their disposal, they do require further accommodation for occupation by them and their family members, bat this can ' be met by releasing too open piece of land in Schedule-C where they can make construction to satisfy their needs and in this view of the matter they do not have bonafide requirement of the accommodation in Schedule A. and B. on the question of comparative hardship also she held in favour of the petitioner tenants. Accordingly she allowed the release of property in Schedule-C and dismissed (the release application in respect of schedule A and B. 4. IN appeal the learned IVth Addl. District Judge came to the conclusion that the three respondents landlords Yogesh Kumar, Rajeev Kumar and Sanjai Kumar along with their families have separate mess and residence in the accommodation presently in their possession in house no. 9/180 Harnathpura Saharanpur. They have a large family consisting of couples and grown up and growing children, all of them are under education, the accommodation in their possession is totally inadequate for their requirements. He accordingly held the need of the respondent landlords tot occupation of the entire property in schedules A B and C to be bonafide. He also found that greater hardship will be caused to the landlords if release is refused than to the tenants if the same is allowed. Accordingly, modifying the order of the prescribed authority, he directed the release of the properties in Schedule A and B also in favour of the landlords. Since the affidavits have been exchanged by the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at admission stage. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the material placed on record perused. 5. AS stated above, both the courts below have concurrently held the need of the respondent landlords, of the additional accommodation for occupation by them and their family members to be bonafide and pressing. Once it was so found, the prescribed authority was absolutely wrong in its approach that denying the constructed area, only the vacant portion of the land should be released to the respondents where they may construct a building to the extent of their requirement. Once it was so found, the prescribed authority was absolutely wrong in its approach that denying the constructed area, only the vacant portion of the land should be released to the respondents where they may construct a building to the extent of their requirement. The law under section 21 of the Act 13 of 1972 does not give this mandate to a tenant or the prescribed authority to require a landlord to do so. He has to be allowed possession over the building to the extent it is necessary to meet this requirements. 6. NOW as far as the factual aspect of the requirement of additional accommodation by the landlords is concerned, it is under law within the domain of the prescribed and the appellate authority to decide whether such a bonafide requirement is there or not. This court in writ petition cannot re-appraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion. Of course there could be interference if the conclusions are perverse or some material evidence has been overlooked. Such is not the case here. The authorities below have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence. Undisputedly the family of the landlord consists of 16 members. The family comprises of three branches and consists besides sons, daughters also couples. No doubt they are in possession of the house no. 9/180 Harnathpura which is also a sizeable building consisting of nine rooms and six kotharies, but it has also been found, and rightly so, that the same is not sufficient for their needs. Considering the facts that the three branches of the respondent landlords virtually constitute three families who are separate in mess and residence, they obviously require three sets of residential accommodation each consisting separate bed rooms for the parent couples, male and female children, besides drawing room, guest room and kitchen etc. In the accommodation at present in their possession these necessities are not available to a satisfactory degree for all the three branches. Under these circumstances the two rooms accommodation in Schedule-A, one room accommodation in Schedule B as well as appurtenant land in Schedule-C has rightly been held to be bonafide, required by these landlords for occupation by them and their families. It will be their internal matter as to how they adjust in the total building at their disposal after the release so us to provide three units of accommodation to the three branches. It will be their internal matter as to how they adjust in the total building at their disposal after the release so us to provide three units of accommodation to the three branches. Their requirement can by no means be said to be ostentatious or fanciful. The criticism that the conclusions are unsustainable became the appellate court discussed the evidence only in few lines is also net tenable because the said court has also taken notice of entire evidence and it was not necessary to reproduce the entire material and then to make the cot-elusion. As far as the consideration of comparative hardship is concerned, also no exception can be taken to the conclusions arrived. As already said above, the need of the respondents being quite genuine and pressing, merely because the respondents will have to search for, or shift to, another accommodation it cannot be held that lesser hardship will be caused to the landlords if the release is refused. The petitioners have cited the decision of Supreme Court in Gautam Chandra lain v. Scot. Sushila Kumari Jain 1982 (2) ARC 295, and have sought to rely on the observations regarding hardship to the tenants on account of non-availability of houses on rent in the urban areas in the country. However, the facts of the present case are quite different in so far as there is nothing to show that air, genuine attempt was made by the petitioners to seek an alternative accommodation. 7. ON the above facts and circumstances, therefore, the impugned orders sought to be challenged by means of this writ petition, do not suffer from any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction so as to call for any interference. 8. THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are allowed two months time to deliver peaceful possession to the respondents subject to giving undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within two weeks. There is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.