A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER. Sardar Pritam Singh (since deceased through his legal representatives Smt. Mahendra Kaur and others) is the owner and landlord of residential accommodation (House No. 178/195b. Roshan Bagh, Khuldabad. situate in the town of Allahabad ). He has been living in a portion of the said house. Admittedly, Khajan Singh, father of petitioner Sardar Prakash Singh (Respondent No. 1), was tenant in a portion of the said house in the past. Said Khajan Singh lived along with his sons (Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 Sardar Prakash Singh) in this very accommodation. After his death, petitioner and respondent No. 1 lived in specified portions in their tenancies. It appears that Sardar Pritam Singh (Petitioner] by means of registered sale deed dated June 4, 1980. purchased entire house, including the portion in the tenancy of Respondent no. 1. A true copy of the sale deed has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner. after purchasing the house, issued notice dated September 23, 1980 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and it was served upon respondent No. 1. as alleged in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition. Petitioner is admittedly landlord of respondent No. 1 and has filed a release application dated April 6, 1982 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) against his brother-tenant (respondent No. 1) alleging, inter alia, amongst other, that his family comprised of : a. 1. Sardar Pritam Singh (Self)2. Smt. Mahendra Kaur (His wife)B. 3. Surendra Pal Singh (Son)4. His wife 5. His son c. 6. Kuljeet Singh (Son)7. His wife 8. And one child. D. 9. Hardeep Singh (Son) (Of marriageable age-- marriage settled and to beperformed soon ). E. 10. Smt. Harjeet Kaur 11. Smt. Inderpai Kaur Married daughters. 12. Smt. Balvir Kaur (See Paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition and Paragraph 6 of the release application-Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). Landlord had with him following accommodation : ground FLOOR one room - 12ft. x 8ft. One room - 12ft. x 10ft. Motor Garage. Verandah, Kitchen. Latrine and bathroom. FIRST FLOOR one room - 12ft. x 10ft. One kitchen. Verandah, another Latrine, One kitchen (used as Store), one Verandah and common latrine. Landlord had with him following accommodation : ground FLOOR one room - 12ft. x 8ft. One room - 12ft. x 10ft. Motor Garage. Verandah, Kitchen. Latrine and bathroom. FIRST FLOOR one room - 12ft. x 10ft. One kitchen. Verandah, another Latrine, One kitchen (used as Store), one Verandah and common latrine. The other portions, in possession of other tenants, namely P. N. Sethi and Murlidhar, were vacated by those persons and were taken possession of by the landlord, but still his need was not fulfilled, as he required more accommodation in view of pending marriage of his grownup son, imminent requirement in view of growth of different units in the family and requirement of drawing room and guest room (Paragraph 15 of the release application ). It was also alleged that the relations of the two brothers-Petitioner and respondent No. 1 were strained which is a constant source of trouble and causing III effect upon the health of the landlord. Petitioner-landlord filed his affidavit in support of the averments contained in the release application (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ). ( 3 ) TENANT-RESPONDENT No. 1 contested release application by filing his written statement (Paper no. 12b) and affidavit (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition ). Landlord filed Rejoinder Affidavit (Paper No. 16b ). The landlord filed another affidavit along with the documents and material on record by way of evidence in support of his case. In the said affidavit (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) it is mentioned that wife of landlord was advised not to climb up stairs and doctors prescriptions were filed in support of the same. It is also asserted that Kuljeet Singh was going to be married with the daughter of Madan Singh in January. 1984. It was also alleged that landlord had only one small room, kitchen and verandah on first floor and that he got possession of other two rooms on the ground floor vacated by erstwhile tenant P, N. Sethi. ( 4 ) THE prescribed authority rejected release application vide impugned judgment and order dated june 5. 1985. Prescribed authority observed that no commission was issued for recording exact spot position. The prescribed authority observed that landlord was in possession of five rooms. According to him. ( 4 ) THE prescribed authority rejected release application vide impugned judgment and order dated june 5. 1985. Prescribed authority observed that no commission was issued for recording exact spot position. The prescribed authority observed that landlord was in possession of five rooms. According to him. four rooms were enough to accommodate his entire family, namely-one room each for two married sons, one room for unmarried son and one room for landlord and his wife. The prescribed authority observed that one room was in surplus with the landlord. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved, landlord filed Reni Control Appeal No. 306 of 1981, Sardar Pritam v. Sardar Prakash Singh. The appellate court, while rejecting appeal, observed that alleged requirement for keeping religious book and prayer was not convincing, as the landlord must be keeping the same in the past at some proper place. The lower appellate court also agreed with prescribed authority that two rooms were enough for two married sons one room could be used by the landlord and his wife and another room by the unmarried son. The appellate court further observed that wife of Pritam Singh could use room on the ground floor in case of her sickness. According to appellate court one room was still in spare to be used by the guests. The appellate court further observed that relations between the parties being strained could not be a ground for considering release in favour of landlord. ( 6 ) APPEAL having been dismissed, landlord has filed present writ petition and prays for quashing of the impugned judgment and orders. (Annexures-8 and 9) passed by prescribed authority and appellate court (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively ). ( 7 ) THIS writ petition was presented in this Court in May 1986. It was admitted vide order dated august 5, 1986. Writ petition has now come up before this Court for final hearing. Sardar Pritam singh died during pendency of the case in High Court. His legal representatives, namely, his wife, three sons and three daughters, have been substituted as petitioners Nos. 1/1 to 1/7. ( 8 ) PETITIONERS have filed a supplementary-affidavit (after serving a copy on the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1) on July 12, 1999. who has stated, after consulting his client, that no counter-affidavit is proposed to be filed against the same by respondent No. 2. 1/1 to 1/7. ( 8 ) PETITIONERS have filed a supplementary-affidavit (after serving a copy on the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1) on July 12, 1999. who has stated, after consulting his client, that no counter-affidavit is proposed to be filed against the same by respondent No. 2. In paragraph 3 of this supplementary-affidavit, it is stated that the family of Surendrapal Singh had increased. Family of second son Kuljeet Singh has got two sons and that the third son Harveep Singh, after having married, had two issues. It is also stated that the landlords nephews have grown up. It la also mentioned that Jasvinder Singh, son of respondent No. 1 had purchased a TATA truck, which he got registered in partnership to show that, respondent No. 1 and his son were affluent. It is also stated that the second daughter of respondent No. 1 was got married during pendency of the writ Petition. We find an averment in Paragraph 6 of the said supplementary-affidavit that respondent No. 1 made no effort to find out any other accommodation and even though the petitioner (through Hardeep Singh deponent of the said supplementary-affidavit) had offered alternative accommodation which has been refused to be accepted only on the ground that rent was a little higher as compared to the rent paid by him with respect to the accommodation in question. ( 9 ) SINCE the dispute was between two real brothers, this Court required learned counsel for the parties to call their respective clients and make an offer to get the matter amicably settled outside the Court as will be evident from perusal of the Order-sheet dated July 15 and 16, 1999, which is being reproduced below : "15. 7. 99. Honble A. K. Yog, J. The case was listed on July 9, 1999, July 12. 1999 and July 13, 1999 and on the request of learned counsel for the parties it was adjourned with specific understanding that learned counsel shall procure presence of their clients. The petitioner and the contesting respondents are real brothers and Court desires that matter may be settled outside Court amicably. The case is being taken-up today. Both petitioner as well as learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G. N. Verma, advocate and Sardar Prakash Singh (Respondent No. 1) along with his counsel Sri Neeraj tripathl, Advocate, are present in Court. The petitioner and the contesting respondents are real brothers and Court desires that matter may be settled outside Court amicably. The case is being taken-up today. Both petitioner as well as learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G. N. Verma, advocate and Sardar Prakash Singh (Respondent No. 1) along with his counsel Sri Neeraj tripathl, Advocate, are present in Court. An effort was made to get the matter settled amicably. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after consulting his client in presence of the Court, submitted that his client (landlord) is ready to grant one year time along with a sum of Rs. 20. 000 to the respondent No. 1, if matter could be settled amicably. Respondent No. 1 has. however, made a blunt refusal. In the circumstances, Court has no option but to decide the matter on merits. Before proceeding to hear the case on merit, this Court has adjourned the same to enable the parties to have further negotiation and to give a second thought. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed today in Court. The counsel for the respondent does not propose to file supplementary counter-affidavit to the same. Put up/list tomorrow (16. 7. 99) as part heard. Sd. A. K. Yog, J. 16. 7. 99 Honble A. K. Yog. J. The Court, before deciding the case finally on merits, required the petitioner to make his offer more attractive and to that learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client can pay maximum Rs. 30. 000 (Thirty Thousand only) in cash to the respondent in case he vacates peacefully within any reasonable time granted by the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent consulted his client (who is present in Court) but he has again refused to consider the said offer. Both the counsel have. however, jointly stated that this Court may finally decide release application on merits and !he case may not be remanded to the trial court. In view of the above, the Court proceeds to decide the release application on the basis of the facts admitted by both the side after hearing learned counsels for the parties. This order is passed at 12 noon. In order to give further time to reconsider the matter, the Court has directed the case to be placed after lunch for dictating judgment. Judgment could not be delivered due to shortage of time. Put up/list in computer list on 23. 7. This order is passed at 12 noon. In order to give further time to reconsider the matter, the Court has directed the case to be placed after lunch for dictating judgment. Judgment could not be delivered due to shortage of time. Put up/list in computer list on 23. 7. 99 for delivery of judgment. Sd. A. K. Yog. J. " ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has. however, refused to settle the matter amicably and also refused to accept the proposal to vacate accommodation within a reasonable time. Learned counsel for the parties were, however, required to give undisputed facts and particulars regarding existing strength of their respective family members living with them as well as the extent of accommodation with them at the moment. Learned counsel for the parties, in presence of their clients. (who are present in Court) gave following agreed details : family OF LANDLORD AT PRESENT : family OF LANDLORD AT PRESENT : a. Smt. Mahenn b. 1. 2. 3. 4. C. 1. 2. 3. 4. D. 1. 2. 3. 4. Excluding 4 Members of Unit B it is admitted to the parties that landlords son Surendrapal Singh, petitioner No. 1/1 and his family are now not living in the accommodation in question. ( 11 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I find that the two Courts below have committed error manifest on the face of record in ignoring the fact that landlords family required additional accommodation for the children who were going to be added as new members apart from certain additional accommodation for studies for those grown up children who would start going to schools in near future. The Courts below were not justified in taking the view that grown up sons and their wives should be required to live in one room along with their children. The two Courts below committed manifest error apparent on the face of record in ignoring the fact that landlord cannot be forced to accommodate his children in their parents bedroom. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Court was required to consider the extent of accommodation by referring to site plan annexed along with the sale deed (Annexures to the writ petition ). It is not disputed that landlord was in possession of the accommodation Indicated above for the use of its family members as indicated above. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Court was required to consider the extent of accommodation by referring to site plan annexed along with the sale deed (Annexures to the writ petition ). It is not disputed that landlord was in possession of the accommodation Indicated above for the use of its family members as indicated above. ( 12 ) THE figures and particulars given above clearly show that, after excluding the unit of surendrapal Singh, there are three units in the landlords family. Petitioner No. 1/1 widow of erstwhile landlord certainly requires a room on ground floor. Similarly, another unit of Kuljeet singh and his wife shall require at least two rooms-one for self and one for two sons Mandeep singh and Gagandeep Singh. Similarly, other unit of Hardeep Singh shall require. In due course, three rooms-one for self (Hardeep Singh and his wife), one room for daughter and one room for son. It will be noted that son and daughter cannot be asked to live in one room after certain age. It will be embarrassing for both of them. In this view of the matter, petitioners family requires at least six rooms to satisfy their residential requirement leaving apart their requirement of having a dining room and drawing room, which is required in the present day by even a moderate middle class. ( 13 ) COURT has no hesitation in concluding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine and his request for taking the accommodation in question in his possession cannot be said to be illusory or only wishful. ( 14 ) COMING to the question of comparative hardship. It will suffice that unrebutted averments made by petitioner in Paragraph 6 of the supplementary-affidavit, that tenant- respondent No. 1 made no efforts to get/search alternative accommodation. go to show that tenant- respondent No. 1 could shift to another accommodation by paying somewhat a little more rent, but respondent no. 1 has not taken care to find out alternative accommodation. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent events can be taken into account, which have come into existence after filing of lease application. In support of his contention he has relied upon decision in 1991 SC 1760 (Paragraph 25) and 1990 AWC 1508 (Paragraph 19 ). Supreme Court has held that subsequent event can be taken into account. In support of his contention he has relied upon decision in 1991 SC 1760 (Paragraph 25) and 1990 AWC 1508 (Paragraph 19 ). Supreme Court has held that subsequent event can be taken into account. This proposition has not been disputed on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the later judgment, learned single Judge of this Court observed that it is not only quantitative need but also the qualitative need of the landlord, which must be taken into account. It fully supports the approach taken by me in the instant case, when this Court finds that the requirement of the landlord of drawing room, dining room is justified. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then referred to the decision in 1996 (2) ARC 409. View taken in the decision in 1990 AWC 1508 has been reaffirmed and it is observed that tenant cannot dictate landlord as to how he should live and the need of the landlord must be commensurate with his status-keeping in mind his need both qualitatively and quantitatively. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while admits the members of the family and the accommodation in their possession as mentioned earlier in this judgment, submitted that this Court should not interfere with concurrent findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship and referred to following decisions : 1. 1999 (1) ARC 188 . 2. 1998 (32) ALR 495. 3. 1997 (1) ARC 654. 4. 1997 (2) ARC 498. 5. 1996 (2) ARC 409. 6. 1996 AWC (Supp) 1183. ( 18 ) IN the case in 1999 (1) ARC 188 . It has been observed in Paragraphs 9, 10, 14. 18 and 19 that there should be no interference if exercise of power is legal and no reasonable man will arrive at a different conclusion. In these decisions referred to above of this Court took the view that findings of fact recorded after appraisal of evidence are not amenable and cannot be assailed. In the case in 1997 (2) ARC 498, learned single Judge in Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment observed that effect of subsequent event have to be taken into account and find out whether children had grown up and need of the landlord has become more pressing. The said observations are against stand taken on behalf of respondent No. 1. The said observations are against stand taken on behalf of respondent No. 1. ( 19 ) THE two Courts below recorded findings of fact completely ignoring imminent need of the landlords family as if his familys need was statistic. No prudent man under normal circumstances could take a view as has been done by the Courts below. Courts below ought to have taken into account the fact that family is to grow and within short span of time family members were bound to increase in all probabilities. Again children were to grow requiring additional accommodation. Further boy and girl, be brother and sister, could be forced to share one room and separate accommodation for their studies was required. The two Courts below have erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in correct perspective. The findings recorded by the two Courts below are no findings of fact in the eye of law as they have been recorded by ignoring admitted facts, material and relevant circumstances, namely, family of the landlord was bound to increase. Findings recorded in ignorance of plea of the landlord on this score vitiated in law and cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction. In support reference may be made to the case in (1994) 4 SCC 1 . ( 20 ) IN the present case, as mentioned above, I find that the judgment and orders dated June 4, 1985 and January 13. 1986 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Annexures-8 and 9) cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. Release application (Annexure-3) Case No. 12 of 1982. Sardar Pritam Singh v. Sardar Prakash Singh, stands allowed. ( 21 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Petitioners may approach the prescribed authority (Respondent No. 2) to deliver the possession as contemplated under the Act. There will be no order as to costs. .