B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these petitions Involve the same questions and. therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE premises in dispute is the first floor of house No. 45/18, Annapurna Gall, Bhaironath, varanasi. On the first floor, there are two rooms and a varandah. In one room Smt. Lalli Devi. the petitioner in petition No. 19020 of 1999 is tenant. In another room. Shankar Prasad Singh, petitioner in Petition No. 36587 of 1999 is tenant. On the ground floor of the house, there are two rooms in the possession of the landlady respondent No. 2 and her husband respondent No. 3; that her husband respondent No. 3 is the pujari of a temple of house No. 32/50 situated in annapurna Gali, Bhafronath, Varanasi ; that he is offering prayer in the temple and staying in one room of the said house. However, the owners of the house have now asked him to vacate the same : that, therefore, the respondent No. 2 landlady required the disputed portion for living with her family in the same. It is alleged that the family of the landlady consists of her husband, two sons and one daughter who are receiving education ; that apart from this, three nephews of the landlady are also living in the said house with her who are receiving education at Varanasi ; that landlady also owns a cow and some place is also required for the cow and its fodder. It is further pleaded that the house is about 100 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and the landlady want to get it reconstructed ; that, therefore, the need of both the rooms of the first floor of the landlady is bona fide. ( 3 ) THE respondent Nos 2 and 3, therefore, moved a petition for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of u. P Act No. XIII of 1972 against Smt. Lalli Devi petitioner in petition No. 19020 of 1999 being p. A. Case No. 16 of 1992. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 14. 5. 1997 by Judgment, Annexure-5 to the petition. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3. therefore, filed an appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 being appeal No. 26 of 1997. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 14. 5. 1997 by Judgment, Annexure-5 to the petition. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3. therefore, filed an appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 being appeal No. 26 of 1997. The same has been allowed by judgment dated 25. 1. 1999, Annexure-11 to the petition. ( 4 ) ANOTHER application was moved by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 21 (1) (a; of u. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against Shankar Prasad Singh, petitioner in petition No. 36587 of 1999. That application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority on 14. 5. 1997 by- order annexure-5 to the petition. Against that order the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also preferred an appeal under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 being appeal No, 24 of 1997. That appeal has been allowed on 28. 7. 1999 by order Annexure-9 to the petition. In this manner, both the appeals have been allowed and the premises in possession of both the petitioners have been released in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the above orders, the tenants have invoked extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by two separate petitions. ( 5 ) I have heard Sri A. K. Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. P. Tiwari. learned counsel for the respondents in both the petitions. ( 6 ) THE first contention of the landlady in the release application was that the house is about 100 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and she want to reconstruct the same. However, this question could not be considered in these petitions as it were the petitions under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the merits. The landlady has also alleged need of some space for keeping the cow and its fodder. The need for keeping the cow cannot be considered under any provision of law. On the other hand, the cow cannot be kept in a residential locality. Therefore, the need for the cow cannot be considered. ( 8 ) IT is admitted by the landlady that her husband is pujarl of a temple in house No. 32/50 in the same Mohalla. On the other hand, the cow cannot be kept in a residential locality. Therefore, the need for the cow cannot be considered. ( 8 ) IT is admitted by the landlady that her husband is pujarl of a temple in house No. 32/50 in the same Mohalla. It is alleged that he had only one room in that house. The learned prescribed authority held that there are five rooms in the possession of the husband of the landlady in that house. That finding has been disturbed by the appellate court relying on the report of the commissioner. In my opinion, the Commissioner report does not prove that there was only one room in that house in the possession of the husband of the landlady. The appellate court has not recorded any cogent reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court that there are five rooms in that house. ( 9 ) THE landlady has also contended that the owners of house No. 32/50 had asked the husband of the landlady to vacate the room. It appears that this plea has been taken for the purpose of showing need. There is no evidence to show that the husband of the landlady has been asked to vacate the room of house No. 32/50. No notice was given to him. It is not alleged that he was threatened to vacate the house. No affidavit of the landlords of house No. 32/50 have been filed to show that they want to dislodge the husband of the landlady from the pujariship and the accommodation of that house. Therefore, the findings of the first appellate court that the husband of the landlady has to vacate the premises No. 32/50 is without any evidence and cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the house in dispute, there are two rooms on the ground floor in the possession of the landlady. Besides this, there are five room in the possession of her husband of house No. 32/50. The family of the landlady consists of two sons and one daughter. Apart from this, it is also alleged that three nephews of the landlady are getting education in Varanasi and are living with the landlady. However, this contention cannot be accepted and it appears that this fact has been pleaded only to create a ground for vacancy. Copy of the release application is annexure-1 to the petition. Apart from this, it is also alleged that three nephews of the landlady are getting education in Varanasi and are living with the landlady. However, this contention cannot be accepted and it appears that this fact has been pleaded only to create a ground for vacancy. Copy of the release application is annexure-1 to the petition. In paragraph 10 of the petition, these facts have been pleaded. It is alleged that Sri Manoj Tiwari. Saroj Tiwari and Shashi Bhushan are getting education in varanasi and are living with the landlady. However, the other details regarding them has not been given. It has not been mentioned that as to in which College and School they were getting education. It is also not alleged as to where they are getting education. In the absence of details, it cannot be accepted that three nephews of the landlady are also living with her for getting education. The application for release was moved in the year 1992 and nine years have since passed. Therefore, in any case, at this stage, it cannot be accepted that the nephews of the landlady are getting education and are living with her. ( 11 ) THE result, therefore, is that the family of the landlady now consists of two sons and one daughter. The accommodation in possession of the landlady, as discussed above. In my opinion is sufficient and there is no bona fide need of the landlady of the disputed portion of the house. I agree with the conclusions recorded by the learned prescribed authority and is of the firm view that the appellate court has erred in recording the finding that the need of the landlady is genuine and bona fide. ( 12 ) THE first appellate court has also not properly weighed the comparative hardship. The petitioner Smt. Lalli Devi is an old widowed lady living alone. There is none to support her. She is passing her old age, living all alone in the disputed house and will be put to an irreparable hardship if she is dislodged from the disputed room. ( 13 ) SIMILAR is the position of other petitioner Shanker Prasad Singh. Admittedly, he was in service in Varanasi and was living in the disputed house. He has retired several years before, during the pendency of the release application. ( 13 ) SIMILAR is the position of other petitioner Shanker Prasad Singh. Admittedly, he was in service in Varanasi and was living in the disputed house. He has retired several years before, during the pendency of the release application. The appellate court has held that now he is unnecessarily living in Varanasi and may go to his native place to live there comfortably. This approach of the appellate court is totally erratic. A person, who throughout his service stayed at varanasi cannot be asked after retirement to go to the native place and live there. Whether it will be possible for him to settle in the village in his old age where there may be so many problems like electricity, water and medical facility. This aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by the appellate court. The petitioner Shanker Prasad Singh during the service period lived in the disputed premises. After his retirement, he cannot be in a capacity to take another accommodation on higher rent. ( 14 ) IN view of this, the comparative hardship also tilts in favour of the petitioners. ( 15 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence and circumstances. I am of the opinion, that the appellate court has erred in allowing the appeal in both the cases. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the impugned Judgments of the appellate court Annexures-9 and 11 to the petitions are quashed and that of the prescribed authority are restored. It is ordered that the application of landlady-respondent No. 2 for the release shall stand rejected. .