Judgment S.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.12.1986 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby he allowed the appeal and released the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent. (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No. 2 (since deceased) filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) for release of a portion of premises No. 138-A, Sharwan Nath Nagar, Hardwar, district Saharanpur with the allegations that he was in Government ser vice and retired on 1.8.1980. He was occupying accommodation provided by the Government but after his retirement, he had to vacate the same. The petitioner was the tenant of the disputed premises consisting of one room, verandah and kitchen and in the same premises he has an accommodation of one room which is hardly sufficient for his residence. His family consists of himself, his wife, one son and two daughters. The application was contested by the petitioner. He alleged that the landlord-respondent No. 2 owns House No. D/18, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi and he does not require the disputed accommodation. Respondent No. 2 is working in a private firm His wife is an agent of LIC working in Delhi and his daughter is also employed in Railway's service. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 2.11.1982 on the ground that the petitioner owns house No. D/18, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi and he does not require the disputed premises for his residential purposes. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal against the said order. Respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 17.12.1986. (3) I have heard Sri K.L. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Murli Dhar, learned senior counsel for the respondent. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal against the said order. Respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 17.12.1986. (3) I have heard Sri K.L. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Murli Dhar, learned senior counsel for the respondent. (4) Respondent No. 1 took the view that the landlord does not own any house in Hardwar and if he does not own any house in Hardwar, the application for release filed by him can be treated under Section 21 (1-A) of the Act which provides that the Prescribed Authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from any building under tenancy, if it is satisfied that the landlord of such building was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had :o vacate on account of the cessation of his employment. This provision is applicable only when the landlord does not own and in possession of any other house for his residential purposes. A Division Bench of this Court in Kafyan Rai Saxena vs. II Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1982 (8) ALR 205, held that the landlord can invoke Section 21 (1-A) of the Act only if he does not already have in his possession an accommodation which he can occupy in his own right after vacating the public building allotted to him in consequence of his employment. Respondent No. 2 admittedly has an accommodation in premises No. 138 Sharwan Nath Nagar, Hardwar. One portion of it consisting of one room and verandah is under the tenancy of the petitioner and another portion consisting of one room is alleged to be in possession of the landlord-respondent No. 2. Secondly, he owns House No. D/18, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, New Delhi. Section 21 (1-A) of the Act, in these circumstances is not applicable to the facts of the present case if the accommodation in his possession is insufficient at Hardwar, he has to establish this fact and the Court has to consider that aspect keeping in view the need of the family members, his status and other requirements. (5) The appellate authority has further taken the view that it is the choice of the landlord to live either at Hardwar or at New Delhi. (5) The appellate authority has further taken the view that it is the choice of the landlord to live either at Hardwar or at New Delhi. The appellate authority was to consider as to whether his intention was bona fide considering all the relevant factors. (6) Respondent No. 2, during the pendency of the writ petition has expired. Sri Murli Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that his widow Smt. Padmawati shall reside in the disputed premises. The house was constructed by the mother of respondent No. 2 Smt. Mathura Devi only with a view to live in a religious place. She expired in the year 1965. Her sister had also constructed a house at Hardwar. This matter requires examination of facts by the appellate authority. It is further contended that this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority and the subsequent events should not be taken into account while deciding the writ petition and has placed reliance upon the decision Kamleskwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal and others, 1997 (30) ALR 307 (SC) : 1997 (2) JCLR 94 (SC). 1 have already observed that the approach of the appellate authority was and therefore, otherwise also his order cannot he sustained. (7) In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 17.12.1986 is hereby quashed. The appellate authority is hereby directed to consider the need of the family members of the deceased respondent No. 2 and decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.