Judgment J.C. Gupta, J. 1. This is tenant's writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 24-2-97 and 31-5-97 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively, whereby the disputed property has been released in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3. 2. The dispute relates to residential house No. 9-B/l Jain Nagar, Meerut. Landlord-respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred as the Act' against the petitioner stating that Sri Jagdish Chand Jain son of Sri Nagina Lal Jain was the owner and landlord of the disputed accommodation who transferred the same to him and the name of the landlord has been duly mutated in Jain Pursharti Co-operative Housing Society, Jain Nagar, Meerut vide Resolution No. 11 dated 20-1-1992. The house in question was purchased by the landlord for his bona fide and genuine requirement. The land lord stated that house No. 8-B/l is owned by his brother Sanjeev Kumar Jain while house No. 8-B/2 is owned by his elder brother Subhash Chand Jain. These houses were allotted to them in the family settlement and that the landlord is residing in one room in house No. 8- B/2, Jain Nagar at the mercy of its owner Subhash Chand Jain. The landlord has no house in his ownership, excepting the house in question. The family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife and one daughter. In house No. 8- B/2 he has no space for kitchen, bedroom, drawing room, dinning room and guest room. The one room accommodation was therefore, not sufficient to cater his need. Besides that, Subhash Chand Jain, the brother of the applicant was also putting pressure upon him to vacate the room. The relations of landlord's wife with the wife of Subhash Chand Jain were not cordial as the wife of Subhash Chand Jain is a hot tempered lady and she was creating problem in peaceful living of the applicant and his family. The family of Subhash Chand Jain consisted of himself, his wife, one married son his wife and one son of marriageable age. Both the sons of Subhash Chand Jain required separate rooms and since his family was growing and was facing shortage of accommodation, the landlord has been asked by Subhash Chand Jain to vacate the room which is in occupation of the landlord. Both the sons of Subhash Chand Jain required separate rooms and since his family was growing and was facing shortage of accommodation, the landlord has been asked by Subhash Chand Jain to vacate the room which is in occupation of the landlord. It was further pleaded that the petitioner-tenant was not residing at Meerut and was getting the accommodation locked. He is a retired person and resides with his son who is posted at Dehradun as an officer in Punjab National Bank. Therefore, he would not suffer any hardship in case he is ordered eviction. On the other hand landlord was suffering great hardship on account of non-availability of the accommodation in question. The release application was con tested by the petitioner on a number of grounds. It was not denied that he was a monthly tenant at Rs. 200/- of the earst-while owner Jagdish Chand Jain. He pleaded ignorance regarding allotment of house in question in favour of the landlord. According to him the landlord is owner/landlord of house No. 8-B/2 Jain Nagar, Meerut alongwith his brother which is built over an area of 200 Sq. Yards and is a triple storeyed building consisting of 8 rooms, kitchen, bathrooms- cum-latrine and the landlord was in occupation of 4 room, kitchen, and two bathrooms-cum-latrine. Similarly landlords brother Subhash Chand Jain was also in possession of 4 rooms, kitchen and bathroom. According to him-Late Nageen Chand Jain the grand-father of the landlord was the owner of building No. 8-B, Jain Nagar and bequeathed the said property to his three grand sons, namely, the landlord, Rajeev Kumar Jain and his brothers Subhash Chand Jain and Sanjeev Kumar Jain in equal shares. The l/3rd portion of Sanjeev Kumar Jain measuring about 100 Sq. Yards was separated and was numbered as 8-B/l, Jain Nagar, Meerut. The remaining 200 Sq. Yards remained joint property of 'rajeev Kumar Jain and Subhash Chand Jain who reconstructed jointly a triple storeyed building which was numbered as 8-B/2 and it was denied by the petitioner that the said building belonged exclusively to Subhash Chand Jain, the brother of the landlord or that the landlord was living in the said house at the mercy of his brother. It was also alleged that the son of the tenant was serving in Punjab National Bank since 16-11-71 and for the last 18 years he was being posted in Rural/hill areas in the district of Uttarkashi and Dehradun etc. and at present he was posted in village Quansi district Dehradun where he is not having big accommodation so as to accommodate the entire family. The al legation that the relations between the wife of the landlord and the wife of his brother were not cordial was also denied. The tenant further pleaded that the landlord has one more house bearing No. 107-C, Jain Nagar, Meerut situated just opposite to house No. 8-B/2, Jain Nagar and it was lying vacant which was in occupation of the applicant's father and mother before their death. Had the landlord any need of a separate residence he would have occupied the said house after the demise of his parents. The tenant further pleaded that the previous landlord Jagdish Chand Jain had filed an application for release against him. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority but the said judgment was set aside in appeal filed by the petitioner. The earst-while landlord then filed writ petition before this Court which was still pending and it was during the pendency of the said writ petition the property in question has been transferred by him in favour of the present landlord who fully knew of this litigation and according to the petitioner when Jagdish Chand Jain failed to get the accommodation in question released in his favour he got the property transferred in favour of the present landlord, who him self has no bona fide and genuine need. The tenant also denied that there had been any family settlement and according to him the alleged family settlement was a mere device to create false and frivolous need to give colour to the release application. 3. The tenant also denied that there had been any family settlement and according to him the alleged family settlement was a mere device to create false and frivolous need to give colour to the release application. 3. In the replication filed by the landlord it was clarified that grand-father of the landlord nominated Smt. Dropadi Devi his wife and after the death of the grand-father, name of Dropadi Devi was duly recorded in the record of Society and she became owner of house No. 8-B and the contention of the tenant that the said house was bequeathed through Will by Nageen Chand Jain to his three grand-sons was wrong as no such Will was-ever executed by Nageen Chand Jain, Smt. Dropadi Devi transferred her rights by transferring her share in favour of Sub-hash Chand Jain, Rajeev Kumar Jain (the present landlord) and Sanjeev Kumar Jain. The landlord in a family settlement subsequently relinquished his rights in house No. 8-B/2 on 13-8-91 and the relinquishment of his rights was dully recorded by the Society through Resolution No. 9 dated 25-8-91. IN this way, house No. 8-B/l came to be recorded" in the ownership of Sanjiv Kumar Jain exclusively whereas house No. 8-B/2 was recorded in the name of Subhash Chand Jain, the other brother of the landlord and thereafter Rajeev Kumar Jain, landlord purchased the house in question for his bona fide and genuine requirement. House No. 109-C, Jain Nagar belonged to his father Roshan Lal who executed a Will in respect thereof and bequeathed the said house to Sri Kimati Lal and Sri Ashwani Kumar Jain became owner of the said house who are also in possession of the same. The family settlement took place amongst the five sons of Roshan Lai Jain and the landlord has no right title or interest either in house No. 109-C or house No. 8- B/2. House No. 8-B/2 is not a triple storeyed building but has only a ground-floor and first floor and a duchhatti on the staircase on the second floor. He is staying in the house in question only as licensee of Subhash Chand Jain and not in his own right. 4. House No. 8-B/2 is not a triple storeyed building but has only a ground-floor and first floor and a duchhatti on the staircase on the second floor. He is staying in the house in question only as licensee of Subhash Chand Jain and not in his own right. 4. On a consideration of evidence and other material produced before the Prescribed Authority, the release application moved by the landlord was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 24-2-97 whose copy has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The appeal preferred by the tenant-petitioner under Section 22 of the Act has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by the order dated 31-5-97, copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Since affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been ex changed and the parties' counsel have been heard at length, this writ petition is disposed of finally by this judgment. 5. Sri V.K. Goel appearing for the petitioner challenged the concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities below on the question of bona fide need of the landlord by contending that they are per verse, arbitrary, biased and based on non-consideration of material evidence. It was submitted that the Courts below have wrongly held that there had been a family settlement whereby House No. 8-B/l fell into the share of the Sanjeev Kumar Jain and House No. 8-B/2 into the share of Subhash Chand Jain, the other brother of the landlord and the landlord himself relinquished his rights in the said house, in as much as they failed to note that the theory of relinquishment was introduced for the first time in replication, which in the absence of any relinquishment deed should not have been accepted. Even the Resolution No. 8 of the Society in which as per the landlord the fact of relinquishment of rights was recorded, was not produced though the same was challenged by the petitioner as invalid and collusive. Even the Resolution No. 8 of the Society in which as per the landlord the fact of relinquishment of rights was recorded, was not produced though the same was challenged by the petitioner as invalid and collusive. It was urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner had made an application for summoning the original record of the Society containing the said Resolution and though the said application was allowed but on the date fixed the President of the society appeared in Court and submitted an application that the record could not be produced because the same has been kept under lock by other members of the society. The said President was subsequently examined as a witness and in his statement he admitted that two registers were being maintained by the Society, one containing the minutes while the other was called ownership register. He further stated that the register containing the Resolution was not available in the office of the society. In his affidavit, the petitioner specifically had alleged that the copy of Resolution filed from the side of the landlord was forged one and the proceedings of the Society were collusive, but the lower Appellate Authority has simply observed that the petitioner has no right to challenge them. According to the petitioner's counsel it was necessary for the Authorities below to have recorded a clear cut finding about the genuineness of the proceedings of the Society and on the landlord's plea of relinquishment especially in the background of the fact that no deed of family settlement or relinquishment were filed on behalf of the landlord. It was further argued that both the authorities below have not duly considered the affidavit of the petitioner challenging the genuineness of the alleged Resolution of the Society and have also not weighed the circumstances appearing in the case and the fact of non- production of original register of the Society and therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below are vitiated. 6. Learned counsellor the petitioner further argued that the finding of the authorities 'below that even if theory of relinquishment was not accepted, still on account of the 'fact that the landlord Rajeev Kumar Jain, was in occupation of only one room, his need for the house in question was bona fide was totally against the evidence on record. 6. Learned counsellor the petitioner further argued that the finding of the authorities 'below that even if theory of relinquishment was not accepted, still on account of the 'fact that the landlord Rajeev Kumar Jain, was in occupation of only one room, his need for the house in question was bona fide was totally against the evidence on record. It was the specific case of the petitioner that the landlord has in his possession four rooms besides kitchen and two bathrooms whereas the case of the landlord was that he has in his occupation only one room. The authorities below have based the finding on this disputed question solely on the report of Amin which could hardly be of any relevance as the inspection was made behind the back of the petitioner. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents-landlord supported the judgments of the Courts below and it was argued by Sri Ravi Kumar Jain that there was ample evidence on record to indicate that house No. 8-B/2 fell in exclusive share of Subhash Chand Jain and the same was constructed by him alone and not by him and the landlord. He further invited the attention of the Court to para graphs 1 to 3 of the application for release and the reply given by the petitioner in his written statement wherein the tenant-petitioner admitted the contents of the aforesaid paragraphs and after this admission it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to challenge the validity of the transfer made by Jagdish Chand Jain in favour of the landlord or to challenge his right of moving application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. He pointed out that the Society sanctioned and approved the transfer of the house in question made by the earst-while landlord in favour of the present landlord and after the same was recorded in the papers of the Society, six months notice as per the requirement of the first proviso to Section 21 (l) (a) was given on 30-6-92 and after the same was served upon the petitioner, application for release was moved on 17-5-95. He further submitted that the landlord has specifically pleaded in the application itself that house No. 8-B/2 has been allotted to Sub-hash Chand Jain exclusively in a family settlement and the petitioner was living there in one room accommodation only as a licensee of his brother Subhash Chand Jain and he has no right and interest there in. These assertions thus left no room of doubt that from the very beginning the landlord's case was that there has been a family settlement in which the landlord has been left with no right or interest in House No. 8-B/2. When the family settlement was disputed by the tenant, the landlord further clarified in detail the position by filing replication wherein it was clearly stated that in the family settlement the landlord relinquished his right in House No. 8-B/2 in favour of his brother and the same was exclusively allotted to him and the landlord was left with no right or title therein. It would thus appear that the landlord from the very beginning has been asserting that he had no right, title or interest in house No. 8- B/2 which exclusively belongs to his brother Subhash Chand Jain, on account of a family settlement. It has rightly been argued by-respondents' counsel that had landlord been having any interest or title in House No. 8-B/2 he would not have made admission against his own interest in the application moved under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act. By saying that he has no right in the said house. Sri Jain further submitted that all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have been dealt with by the lower Appellate Authority and cogent and valid reasons have been given support of the findings recorded on the relevant is sues. It was also submitted that a perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that no argument was raised before the said Authority on behalf of the tenant that no Resolution had been passed by the Society or that the copy of Resolution filed before the Prescribed Authority wife a forged and fictitious document. From the arguments raised before the authority below, it would appear that the parties were at variance only with regard to the extent of accommodation in House No. 8-B/2 which is in occupation of the present landlord. From the arguments raised before the authority below, it would appear that the parties were at variance only with regard to the extent of accommodation in House No. 8-B/2 which is in occupation of the present landlord. According to the landlord-respondent he is in occupation of only one room at the mercy of his brother while according to the tenant-petitioner the landlord was having in his occupation four rooms. There is a clear cut concurrent finding that the landlord has in his occupation only one room in the said house with a separate kitchen and rest of the house was in occupation of his brother Subhash Chand Jain and his family. Sri Jain there fore, argued that even if the theory of relinquishment is left apart, the landlord-respondent could not be compelled to cramp himself in a small accommodation of one room nor he could be compelled to file a suit for partition against his brother for having half portion of House No. 8-B/2 in his occupation after dispossession of his brother from the portion which he was occupying in excess of his share. The brother's family is a big one and if he and his family members are already in occupation of major portion of that house, the landlord who has purchased the house in question for his need could legitimately ask for eviction of the same by the tenant-petitioner for his own residential purpose. The authorities below have recorded con current findings that the landlord is in occupation of only one room while his brother Subhash Chand Jain is in occupation of two rooms on the ground floor while two rooms of first floor are in occupation of his married sons, namely, Sameer Jain and Sunil Jain. There is also a finding that the landlord is a man of status and is engaged in cloth business and the landlord has no separate kitchen etc. in House No. 8-B/2 and the accommodation available therein was not even sufficient for meeting out the needs of the family members of his brother Subhash Chand Jain. In these circumstances, the need of the landlord for the house in question could not be said to be mala fide. It is well settled law while judging the genuineness of the need of the landlord, his social status the standard of living etc. In these circumstances, the need of the landlord for the house in question could not be said to be mala fide. It is well settled law while judging the genuineness of the need of the landlord, his social status the standard of living etc. are relevant consideration and if they had been taken into account while answering the question it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the authorities below is based on irrelevant consideration. The finding of the authorities below that the landlord is in occupation of only one room in House No. 8-B/2 is not solely based upon the report of Amin but has been recorded on a consideration of entire material on record. The argument of the petitioner's counsel that the finding is also vitiated on account of non- consideration of Rule 16(l)(b) also cannot be accepted as no such case was either pleaded or urged before the Courts below. It may also be noted here that the house in question is situated separately from House No. 8-B/2 and therefore, the landlord cannot be compelled to have his residences at two places rather than to have at one place. The accommodation available in the house in question cannot be said to be far in excess to the requirement of the landlord who is having a high status, both social and economic. Every landlord is en titled to reasonable comfortable living. Many persons having large family manage to live in one or two rooms with no separate kitchen, bath- rooms etc. while others used to a reasonable high standard of living may find it difficult to live in such a small space and in order to lead a comfortable living they may require separate bed-rooms, drawing- room, dining-room, kitchen, bath room, study-room, guest room etc. The need therefore, is to be judged from the view point of the landlord after taking into consideration his status, his style of living etc. No hard and fast formula can be prescribed for limiting the extent of accommodation merely on the basis of the number of family members of the landlord. It is true that the number of family members is also a relevant factor which has to be taken into account while considering the requirement of the landlord but it cannot be the sole criterion for deciding the said question. It is true that the number of family members is also a relevant factor which has to be taken into account while considering the requirement of the landlord but it cannot be the sole criterion for deciding the said question. It is not the end of the matter and other factors like status, standard of living, age of the family members, their personal inconvenience etc. are also to be considered for judging the requirement of the landlord. No straight jacket formula can be laid down that for a family consisting of three members only one, two or three rooms should necessarily be ordered to be released. There may be a landlord who has with him only his wife and yet he may require more than one room for his comfortable living having regard to his status, standard of living etc. 7. In the present case the concurrent finding recorded by the authorities below on the question of bona fide need being based on appraisal of evidence is found to be reasonable and therefore, does not re quire interference. It is well settled law that the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in Rent Control matters is of supervisory nature only and the Court does not act as a Court of appeal and therefore, cannot embark upon re-appraisal of evidence or substitute its own findings of feet in place of those recorded by the fact 'finding authority. The powers are of judicial review and the parameters of judicial review have been well settled by now. If the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below is found to be rational and reasonable based on evidence and the decision is one which any reasonable minded person acting on such evidence would come to, then the judicial review is exhausted and the finding of fact cannot be upset merely on the ground that the same was not to the liking of this Court. IN other words, if two reasonable views are possible on the same evidence, this Court will not interfere with the view taken by the fact finding authorities. IN the present case, it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by the Courts below on the question of bona fide need of the landlord is unreasonable or manifestly-erroneous or arbitrary. IN other words, if two reasonable views are possible on the same evidence, this Court will not interfere with the view taken by the fact finding authorities. IN the present case, it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by the Courts below on the question of bona fide need of the landlord is unreasonable or manifestly-erroneous or arbitrary. This Court is therefore, does not find any ground to make interference in the said finding. 8. On the question of comparative hardship also both the authorities below have examined the evidence and material in right perspective and after weighing various facts and factors, they have recorded a finding that the landlord is likely to suffer a greater hardship than that of the tenant-petitioner. Finding on this question also is based upon appraisal of evidence and this Court refuses to interfere. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition must fail. 9. Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. After the delivery of judgment, Sri V.K. Goeal learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that some reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and handover its possession to the landlord and the petitioner is prepared to file undertaking as may be ordered by this Court. In the circumstances of the case, petitioner is allowed time upto 31-1. 1999 to vacate the premises and handover its vacant possession peacefully to the landlord respondent No. 3 subject to his furnishing an undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within three weeks from today that he shall vacate the premises on or before 31-1-1999. For a period of three weeks from today the eviction of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order of release shall remain suspended. If, the required undertaking is filed within the period aforesaid, the eviction shall remain stayed upto 31-1-1999. However, if no such undertaking is filed, it shall be open for the landlord to get the release order enforced forthwith. Petition dismissed.