JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. This is a landlord's petition challenging impugned judgment and order dated 16th November, 1981 (Annexure 9) whereby the Appellate Authority, District Judge, Kanpur allowed the appeal filed by Ramesh Chandra (tenant-respondent No. 1). 2. PROCEEDINGS for seeking release were initiated by the then landlord under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short called 'the Act' (Annexure 1 to the petition). The tenant filed objections. 3. PARTIES led evidence. The commissioner's report was also obtained by Prescribed Authority-true copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 to the petition. 4. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated March 8, 1977 allowed the release application (Annexure 5 to the petition). The tenant-respondent challenged the order dated 8th March, 1977 before Appellate Authority. The said appeal having been dismissed, tenant feeling aggrieved challenged the said order by filing writ petition in this Court, which was finally allowed vide judgment and order, dated October 6, 1979 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding afresh with liberty to the parties to bring on record subsequent events which had taken place till that stage. 5. AFTER matter was remanded, tenant-respondent filed an affidavit dated 10-11-1980 (Annexure 7 to the petition) and a counter-affidavit dated 16-10-1981 was filed by landlord (Annexure 8 to the petition). 6. THE Appellate Authority passed impugned judgment and order, dated 16-11-1981 (Annexure 9 to the petition) without specifically referring to the said affidavit and counter-affidavit (Annexures 7 and 8). On behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that non-consideration of said affidavits filed before Appellate Authority has vitiated the judgment. THE arguments appear to have sub stance. Perusal of the appellate impugned judgment shows that learned District Judge has not considered the issues before it by adopting pragmatic approach. The Appellate Authority has committed manifest error apparent on the face of record in considering the issues by adopting measures and standard based completely on its whims. The Appellate Authority has failed to considering the contention of the landlord and relevant material in respect thereof by applying just and balance standards propounded by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Appellate Authority has failed to considering the contention of the landlord and relevant material in respect thereof by applying just and balance standards propounded by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Appellate Authority has observed that the case of the landlord cannot be believed that one room was locked for the married daughter, where she was keeping her goods and wherein she was co-owner. The case of the landlord that the said married daughter was co-owner has not been disbelieved. In these circumstances it can not be said that it is not necessary in any such circumstances that married daughter cannot be allowed to keep luggage and her articles separately, when she had strained relations with her family. It is another matter that the Appellate Authority can otherwise on me basis of evidence on record disbelieve the case on this aspect. 7. AGAIN Appellate Authority has given dimension of the room and the number of family members of the landlord and the size of the rooms. It is clearly indicated that they are not spacious. 8. THE Appellate Court further ob served that "in a place like Kanpur, where there is dearth of accommodation, the landlords have, in my opinion, enough accommodation to meet their requirements." THE said observations of the Appellate Authority show that he had failed to give due weight to the point of view of the landlord, their status and consideration that he had grown-up sons who were, in all eventuality, to be married in near future. It is now come on record those sons were married in due course and they had their own family, which required addition al accommodation. THE Appellate Authority has thereafter observed that the case of the landlord that the articles belonging to the erstwhile original landlord Dr. Tewari were being kept in one room only. THE said articles could be arranged in the accommodation already available to the landlord and hence the said room (in which articles of Dr. Tewari were said to be restored) was available for use. One cannot appreciate as to how the articles of said Dr. Tewari could not be arranged due to paucity of particular size of the rooms in possession of the landlord itself was not much of such dimension. Tewari were said to be restored) was available for use. One cannot appreciate as to how the articles of said Dr. Tewari could not be arranged due to paucity of particular size of the rooms in possession of the landlord itself was not much of such dimension. The Appellate Authority has also observed that "the further assertion of the landlord-respondent that the sons are to be recently married and then the accommodation will pot be sufficient is in my opinion not to fee attached importance at this state. As and when one gets married, the petition will be assessed in the light of the circumstances then found existing. An unmarried daughter may leave Kanpur after marriage land who knows that the married daughter living in the house may also leave the town. What is, therefore, to come in future cannot be judged at this stage. The position is to be considered in the light of the feet, which exist today. " 9. THE above observations made by the District Judge cannot be proved. THE order of the District Judge in recording findings against the landlord are, there fore, vitiated in law. In this context reference may be made to the decision reported in 1980 AWC 350, wherein it is held that due weight should be given to the landlord viewpoint. 10. THE observation of the appellate Court that it hands certainly acted on conjecture and conveniently ignored the reasonable expected development in near future as far as expansion of landlord's family is concerned. THE Appellate Authority has erred in law in holding that when the sons are actually married only then the said changed circumstance could be taken into, account. THE fact that sons are of marriageable age and in normal course they were likely to be married which can be said to be need of future. Need which i may, individually normal course of needs, arise normally in near future is a valid consideration while deciding the question of bona fide need under the Act. While writ petition was pending an affidavit along with an application dated 27th October, 1987 was filed in this Court after copy was served on the learned counsel for the contesting respondent. A statement at bar has been made that no counter-affidavit has been filed in the same. The averments contained in the affidavit have pot been rebutted. While writ petition was pending an affidavit along with an application dated 27th October, 1987 was filed in this Court after copy was served on the learned counsel for the contesting respondent. A statement at bar has been made that no counter-affidavit has been filed in the same. The averments contained in the affidavit have pot been rebutted. The averments in the said affidavit sworn by Prabhat Kumar Tewari, show that some of the sons were married and that position of the landlord has further changed indicating that need of he landlord has become more acute and pressing. 11. IN view of the above, judgment and order dated 16th November, 1981 (Annexure 9 to the petition) cannot be maintainable and is accordingly set aside and the judgment and order dated 8th March, 1977 with respect to House No. 106/49, under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act (Annexure 5) is affirmed. 12. WRIT petition stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs. At this stage of the judgment being dictated. Sri S. D. Kautilya, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that this Court be pleased to grant some time to the tenant-respondent No. 1 for vacating the accommodation and delivering the possession of house in question to the landlord subject to the usual condition being imposed. Learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner has submitted that he has no objection if time is being granted to the tenant for vacating the accommodation within a reasonable time provided the tenant fulfil the conditions imposed by this Court. 13. TENANT-respondent No. 1 shall not be dispossessed from accommodation in question on the basis of the orders till 15th February, 2000 subject to the following conditions:- (1) the tenant-petitioner/s file/s before concerned Prescribed Authority, on or before 15th September, 1999, an application along with his affidavit giving an unconditional undertaking to comply with all the conditions mentioned hereinafter. (2) Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for six months i.e. up to 15th February, 2000. (2) Petitioner-tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in his tenancy for six months i.e. up to 15th February, 2000. TENANT-petitioner, his representative/assignee, etc., claiming through him or otherwise, if any, shall vacate without objection and peacefully deliver vacant possession of the accommodation in question on or before 15th February, 2000 to the landlord or landlord's nominee/representative (if any, appointed and intimated by the landlord) by giving prior advance notice and notifying to the landlord by Registered A. D. post (on his last known address or as may be disclosed in advance by the landlord in writing before the concerned Prescribed Authority), time and date on which landlord is to take possession from the tenant. , ' ' -. (3) Petitioners shall on or before 15th September, 1999 deposit entire amount due towards rent etc. up to date i.e. entire arrears of the past, if any, as well as the rent for the period ending on the 15th February, 2000. (4) Petitioners and everyone claiming under him undertake not to 'change* or 'damage' or transfer/alienate assign in any manner, the accommodation in question. (5) In case tenant-petitioner/s fail to comply with any of the conditions/or direction contained in this order, landlord shall be entitled to evict the tenant-petitioners forthwith from the accommodation in question by seeking police force through concerned Prescribed Authority. (6) Defaulting party shall pay Rs. 25000 (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as damages to the other party if there is violation of the undertaking or anyone or more of the conditions contained in this order. Petition allowed.