JUDGMENT : - Pradeep Kant, J. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 whereby the need of the landlord has been found to be bonafide and genuine resulting in the order of release of a portion of the premises in dispute in favour of the landlord. The tenant Dr. Chaman Lal Singhal, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Court, has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. ADMITTEDLY, late Shyam Sunder Tewari, father of respondent No. 3 Suresh Chand Tewari constructed the house in question. The said house devolved upon both the sons of Shyam Sunder Tewari namely, respondent No. 3 Suresh Chand Tewari and Hem Chand Tewari (elder brother). Shyam Sunder Tewari divided the aforesaid house into two portions-eastern portion of the said house was given to the elder brother of respondent No. 3 by means of a registered Gift Deed dated 26-9-1968 and the western portion of the said house devolved by virtue of the Registered Will dated 18-5-1982 upon respondent No. 3 Suresh Chand Tewari. The two portions were renumbered and the portion which fell in the share of Hem Chand Tewari was numbered as 409 and the portion which came in the ownership of respondent No. 3 Suresh Chand Tewari bore municipal number 410. Suresh Chand Tewari moved an application for release of the accommodation in view of the need of the members of his family against the present petitioner who was residing as a tenant in the First Floor of House No. 410 situate in Mohalla Purana Qila Police Station Husainganj, Lucknow. This House No. 410 is the same very portion namely the western portion of the house constructed by Shyam Sunder Tewari which devolved upon Suresh Chand Tewari by virtue of Registered Will dated 18-5-1982. Respondent No. 3 laid his claim for additional accommodation on the ground that he was having family of five persons namely, he himself, his wife, his two grown up daughters and one son whereas he was having only two rooms along with two verandahs, kitchen, latrine, store-room, bath room and of course passage and courtyard. Respondent No. 3 laid his claim for additional accommodation on the ground that he was having family of five persons namely, he himself, his wife, his two grown up daughters and one son whereas he was having only two rooms along with two verandahs, kitchen, latrine, store-room, bath room and of course passage and courtyard. It was also pleaded that the petitioner, at the time of moving the application, was having only three members in his family namely, himself, wife and one son Dr. Atul Singhal whereas the accommodation under his tenancy consisted of two rooms, two verandahs, one kitchen, one store room, one latrine, one bath room and passage and open space etc. Besides this requirement of additional accommodation the respondent No. 3 also pleaded that his eldest daughter has completed the course of Shorthand and Typing and she also wanted to open a Coaching and Typing School for helping him monetarily for enhancing his income. 3. CONTEST was put in by the petitioner by filing written statement in which the need of the landlord was denied and a plea was also raised that the petitioner was using the stair-case also which fell in the share of Hem Chand Tewari, elder brother of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, Hem Chand Tewari was necessary party to be impleaded as respondent and in his absence the application was not maintainable. It was, however, admitted in his written statement that the petitioner was tenant of the entire portion of House No. 410, Purana Qila, Lucknow on a monthly rent of Rs. 41. The accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner also admittedly consisted of two rooms with one box room inside the room, two verandahs, two Kotharis with a passage in front of them, a kitchen with open space in front, bath room, latrine and the entire open roof above the first floor with a tin-shed and latrine. It has also been admitted in the written statement that these premises were let out by Shyam Sunder Tewari in the year 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. Later on the rent was enhanced to Rs. 41 per month in two phases. It has also been admitted in the written statement that these premises were let out by Shyam Sunder Tewari in the year 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. Later on the rent was enhanced to Rs. 41 per month in two phases. The claim of respondent No. 3 was also challenged on the ground that the elder brother of Respondent No. 3 was also claiming proportionate rent and according to the petitioner, the application was defective and it has been filed by respondent No. 3 alone who was admittedly the owner and landlord of the portion of the accommodation in question tenanted by the petitioner. A plea was also raised that the residential accommodation cannot be got released for commercial purposes as according to the petitioner opening of Shorthand and Typing School is a commercial activity. 4. THE parties tendered evidence. On behalf of respondent, Suresh Chand Tewari (Respondent No. 3) examined himself and filed an Affidavit, a copy of the registered Will dated 18-5-1982 and Affidavit of Hem Chand Tewari elder brother of respondent No. 3 while the petitioner filed a few rent receipts and certain Affidavits of his own. The Prescribed Authority, however, rejected the plea of the landlord respondent No. 3 for release of the building on the ground of opening of Shorthand and Typing School as the same was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority but the application for partial release of the accommodation was allowed after holding that the need of the landlord for an additional accommodation was bona fide and genuine looking to the number of members of his family and their requirements and the accommodation available with the landlord at that moment. The Prescribed Authority also found on comparison of hardships of the parties, that the landlord would suffer greater hardship, in case the application is rejected. While allowing the application for release, in part, the Prescribed Authority also recorded a finding that non-impleadment of Hem Chand Tewari (elder brother) was not fatal to the institution of the proceedings and that respondent No. 3 was established to be the owner of the premises of which the petitioner was tenant namely House No. 410, Purana Qila, Lucknow. 5. AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 8-5-1988. 5. AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 8-5-1988. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and did not find any illegality in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. 6. IN the present writ petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri S. K. Banerji urged that respondent No. 3 could not establish that he was the owner and was having a valid title over the premises in question namely, House No. 410, Purana Qila, Lucknow and, therefore, his application for release of the building was not maintainable. IN continuation of his submission he further submitted that Hem Chand Tewari, elder brother of respondent No. 3 was also claiming rent proportionately and, therefore, in the absence of title being established by adducing such evidence which was necessary for the purpose, the application moved by respondent No. 3 could not have been allowed. He placed reliance upon the fact that admittedly the stair-case which was being used by the petitioner fell in the eastern portion of the House Bearing No. 409 and, therefore, the application solely on behalf of respondent No. 3 was not maintainable. The trial Court has found that an Affidavit has been filed by Hem Chand Tewari in which he has admitted that House No. 410 has devolved upon respondent No. 3 by virtue of a registered Will reference of which has been made by respondent No. 3 in the pleadings and on the basis of which he has claimed ownership. There is no dispute that the house in question was constructed by the father of Hem Chand Tewari and respondent No. 3 and there is no dispute also that by virtue of a Gift Deed the eastern portion of the said house stood transferred in favour of Hem Chand Tewari and by virtue of Registered Will western portion devolved upon Suresh Chand Tewari respondent No. 3. No dispute has been raised by the petitioner regarding the aforesaid facts. The Affidavit filed by Hem Chand Tewari dated 3-8-1993 admits the ownership of Suresh Chand Tewari over the western portion viz., House No. 410. No dispute has been raised by the petitioner regarding the aforesaid facts. The Affidavit filed by Hem Chand Tewari dated 3-8-1993 admits the ownership of Suresh Chand Tewari over the western portion viz., House No. 410. Thus, the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 3 has not been able to prove his ownership cannot be accepted besides the fact that the question of ownership of the premises was not very material for seeking release of accommodation under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. What is to be seen in this application is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. If the relationship of landlord and tenant is established, the question of ownership may lose significance. IN the instant case the petitioner has nowhere denied in the written statement or even during the course of argument that there was no such relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. To the contrary, the tenor of the averment made in the written statement and particularly in Paragraph No. 6 of the written statement leave no room for doubt that the petitioner admitted himself to be the tenant of Suresh Chand Tewari and he has also admitted that he is tenant of the entire upper portion of House No. 410 on a monthly rent of Rs. 41. The accommodation of the petitioner has also been disclosed in the said paragraph. The receipts have also been filed which indicate that the petitioner paid rent to Suresh Chand Tewari also. Once the relationship of landlord and tenant has been accepted and there being no dispute by Hem Chand Tewari regarding the ownership of the premises in question, the findings recorded in this behalf by the Courts below cannot be interfered with. It has no-where been stated or proved that at any point of time the rent was paid to Hem Chand Tewari nor it could be established that any rent was payable to Hem Chand Tewari. IN view of the finding recorded by the Courts below that the petitioner is the tenant of the western portion of the house, House No. 410 and respondent No. 3 is the landlord thereof and the relationship of landlord and tenant having been established between the petitioner and respondent No. 3, the application for release has rightly been held to be maintainable. Non-joinder of Hem Chand Tewari in the application did not bring out any illegality or irregularity so as to defeat the claim of Suresh Chand Tewari on that ground. So far as the bona fide need of the landlord is concerned, both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence on record, have recorded a finding that the accommodation available with the landlord was too short so as to meet the needs of himself and his family members. Landlord's family at the time of moving application consisted of two grown up daughters and one son alongwith his wife. Thus, in all, five members were there with only two rooms in their possession. I have been informed that the eldest daughter has been married but the second daughter is again grown-of age and his son has also grown- up. For accommodating four grown up persons including the landlord and his wife, the Courts below have found that the release of one room only out of the tenanted portion of the petitioner would meet the requirements of the landlord. This finding cannot be said to be unreasonable, perverse or bad for any reason whatsoever. The Courts below have applied the principle of 'live and let live'. The need, thus, having been established to be bona fide and genuine, the comparative hardship has been evaluated by the Courts below in correct perspective. 7. DURING the course of arguments it has been stated by the parties' Counsel that the son of the petitioner is pursuing higher studies in America and, therefore, the petitioner's family is confined to himself and his wife. I do not wish to enter into this controversy as I find that the need of the landlord has been found to be bona fide and genuine and on comparative hardship, the application has been allowed in part. Whenever a tenant is to be evicted in pursuance of the proceedings under the Rent Control Act, it is very natural that some inconvenience has to be faced by him but such inconvenience cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the application of the landlord. No such illegality could be pointed out the orders passed by the Courts below requiring any interference into the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. No such illegality could be pointed out the orders passed by the Courts below requiring any interference into the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. THE application for release having been allowed only for one room which is the part of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. 9. AT this juncture learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. K. Banerji, submitted that the petitioner and his wife are in America since December, 2000 with their son, therefore, some time be granted for vacating the premises. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has no objection in case four months' time is granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises. The petitioner shall vacate the premises on or before 1-4-2002, of course, subject to the payment of rent which he is paying and shall hand over peaceful possession to the landlord on or before the aforesaid date namely, 1-4-2002 subject to the undertaking being filed within a period of one month to the aforesaid effect failing which respondent No. 3 shall be entitled to get the orders executed. Petition dismissed.