A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, the tenant-petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 6-9-1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority/respondent No. 2 appointed under Section 21, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act), whereby the application for the release of the accommodation has been allowed in favour of the landlord and the judgment and the order dated 18-7-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge/respondent No. 1 affirming the above release order passed by the Prescribed Authority (Annexures 5 and 6 to the Writ Petition) and prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the aforementioned impugned orders. ( 2 ) ONE R. N. Gupta (Respondent No. 3), called the landlord in the present petition, initiated release proceedings by filing application (P. A. Case No. 44 of 1993, Ram Narain Gupta v. Deepak Nijhawan) under Section 21 (1) (A) of the Act on the ground that he was the landlord of the residential building-house No. 222/1 Civil Lines, Bareilly called the accommodation which was in possession of Deepak Nijhawan (the Tenant) in as much as the said accommodation was bona fide required since his sole son, residing and doing business at Allahabad, was to settle at Bareilly to look after his old father and mother, i. e. the landlord Respondent No. 3 and his wife aged about 71 and 65 years respectively. ( 3 ) IT may be noted here that approximately nine years have elapsed and the landlord and his wife are now aged about 80 and 74 years respectively. It is claimed that the need of the landlord was, genuine/bona fide, hard and pressing; the petitioner-Deepak Nijhawan/the tenant was financially sound, and the comparative hardship to the landlord was going to be more as compared to the hardship to be faced by the tenant if the accommodation was not released. It is claimed that the need of the landlord was, genuine/bona fide, hard and pressing; the petitioner-Deepak Nijhawan/the tenant was financially sound, and the comparative hardship to the landlord was going to be more as compared to the hardship to be faced by the tenant if the accommodation was not released. ( 4 ) IN the release application dated 13-9-1993 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition), the landlord contended that the accommodation in the tenancy of Deepak Nijhawan (Petitioner) and the residential accommodation of the landlord has one common passage/compound; both about each other; the landlord and his wife (who were very old) lived alone at Bareilly (where they have no relative or friend), both of them suffer from ailments like blood pressure, cardiac trouble and diseases in bone joints, the landlord has one married son Paritosh Kumar Gupta at Allahabad doing business of supply of electronic goods in the State of U. P. , his son is unable to manage efficiently and cover Western districts, like Bareilly, Saharanpur, Dehradun etc. ; his son wants to shift to Bareilly for better and proper management of his business with his office at Bareilly, his son has no residential accommodation for keeping his wife and the family at Bareilly, his son, daughter-in-law and children will be able to assist him if they also shift to Bareilly, landlords son and daughter-in-law will be able to look after the landlord and his wife in their old age, the landlord retired from the post of Regional Engineer Telegraph in the year 1980 and settled at Bareilly in the residential portion in their possession, landlords son and his family cannot have separate mess and cannot be independently accommodated; their need will be satisfied with the residential building in the tenancy of the petitioner/the tenant; the tenant-petitioner does not require the said portion of the building since he has constructed a big Hotel (Chandra Gupt) just opposite the accommodation in question, wherein tenant can shift; the two elder children of the tenant were studying at Nainital and Delhi; the youngest child of the tenant was aged 3 years; the tenant-petitioner shall face no inconvenience if he is directed to vacate the building inasmuch as the son of the landlord has no other residential accommodation at Bareilly and consequently suffering immensely in business; the need of the landlord was much more pressing, genuine and bona fide than the tenant and that the landlord had to suffer more hardship as compared to that of the tenant and hence the building in question should be released. ( 5 ) THE tenant filed written statement dated 28-2-1995 (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition) and denied the case as pleaded in the release application by the landlord. ( 6 ) THE tenant however, did not deny that the landlord is a retired person, landlord and his wife are old and aged about 80 years and 74 years respectively and his two children (studying outside Bareilly) visited their parents in holidays. The tenant contended that the son and his wife were not on cordial terms with the landlord and his wife; the grand children of the landlord were receiving education at Allahabad. The tenant contended that the son and his wife were not on cordial terms with the landlord and his wife; the grand children of the landlord were receiving education at Allahabad. Landlord and his wife did not suffer from alleged ailments, denied that the son of the landlord was unable to carry on his business efficiently from Allahabad, the tenant had no place to shift his residence (sic) to shift and have residence in hotel was not feasible; the accommodation in possession of the landlord consisted of three big halls and three big rooms out of which only a room and a hall were in actual use of the landlord and his wife the rest rooms were lying vacant; the landlord had sold certain premises to one Krishna Murti at a very high price; the landlord had about 500 sq. yards open land as lawn; the tenant occupied the accommodation in question on the basis of 15 years old allotment order in his favour, which annoyed the landlord; the landlord did not require the accommodation in question bona fide and that the landlord shall not suffer more hardship than that of the tenant. ( 7 ) A survey-commissioner was appointed who submitted report on 26-5-1999/ (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition ). The said commissioners report mentioned that house No. 222 Civil Lines, Bareilly (in possession of the landlord) consisted of three big halls, three rooms apart from a verandah two bath rooms, two kitchens, one latrine, one store, one room outside house and a room housing zet pump and verandah. The Commissioner, however, in his affidavit dated 26-8-1997 mentioned that building 222, Civil Lines, Bareilly (in possession of the landlord) consisted of three rooms, toilet and kitchen. The landlord had converted the verandah and the back verandah by raising partition wall to provide Pooja room and store (Para 5 of the said affidavit/ (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition ). ( 8 ) PARTIES led evidence as they desired. The Prescribed Authority vide impugned judgment and order dated 6-9-1999 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) accepted the case of the landlord. After considering the relevant material/evidence on record and recorded categorical findings of fact to the effect that the need of the landlord was bona fide and that comparatively the landlord was to suffer more than the tenant, if the release application was not allowed. After considering the relevant material/evidence on record and recorded categorical findings of fact to the effect that the need of the landlord was bona fide and that comparatively the landlord was to suffer more than the tenant, if the release application was not allowed. ( 9 ) THE Prescribed Authority with respect to the contention of the tenant- (1) that landlord had sold certain accommodation to one Krishna Murti (the tenant in possession) found that the landlord had option to file release application with respect to the buildings in question and in case the landlord had sold the accommodation to a person (the tenant) in possession of that building, it did not prejudice the case of the landlord; (ii) that the financial condition of the tenant was sound and good; (iii) that the tenant made no effort to obtain alternative accommodation during pendency of the release proceedings, (in other words, there was nothing on record to show that the tenant was unable to obtain another alternative accommodation) and (iv) that the tenant could easily vacate and shift elsewhere. ( 10 ) DEEPAK Nijhawan (tenant-petitioner), being aggrieved, against the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, filed Rent Control Appeal No. 44 of 1999 under Section 22 of the Act. ( 11 ) THE Appellate Authority/respondent No. 1 (VI Additional District Judge, Bareilly) dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 18-7-2000 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition) and affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. Hence the present Writ Petition for quashing of the above orders of Release (Annexures 5 and 6 to the Writ Petition ). ( 12 ) AT the very out set it may be stated that copies of the petition were received by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly and the Prescribed Authority, Bareilly) who are unnecessary redundant parties and no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the said respondents. ( 13 ) THE sole contesting Respondent No. 3, Sri R. N. Gupta, (landlord) has filed Counter. Affidavit along with an application to vacate interim order dated 1-8-2000. ( 14 ) PETITIONER filed rejoinder affidavit. ( 13 ) THE sole contesting Respondent No. 3, Sri R. N. Gupta, (landlord) has filed Counter. Affidavit along with an application to vacate interim order dated 1-8-2000. ( 14 ) PETITIONER filed rejoinder affidavit. In para 4 of the said Rejoinder Affidavit (sworn on the basis of personal knowledge) for the first time some new factual allegations were made to the effect that the landlord entered into an oral agreement dated 13-4-2001 to sell the building in question and that original suit No. 614 of 2001 has been filed by said Subhash Chandra the landlord for executing an agreement in pursuance to the aforementioned oral agreement. Copy of the agreement sought to be executed through Court and the plaint of said original suit No. 614 of 2001 have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit. ( 15 ) THE landlord, therefore, filed Supplementary Counter-Affidavit and denied the averments contained in aforementioned para 4 of the Rejoinder Affidavit and the tenant in reply filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions- (1) The findings recorded by the Courts below on the question of bona fide need cannot be sustained. If the landlord and his wife are aged and sick and the son of the landlord had bona fide intention to settle at Bareilly for looking after his parents (i. e. the landlord and his wife) the said son would have shifted to Bareilly for more than ten years earlier and not waited so long. ( 17 ) THE learned counsel for contesting Respondent No. 3 however submitted that both the Courts below considered the relevant material/evidence on record and on having appreciated the same arrived at concurrent conclusion, namely, need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondent landlord further submitted that it was not open to the tenant petitioner to assail finding of fact when the petitioner has failed to show that finding is neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence or in ignorance of any relevant material on record. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made no attempt to demonstrate before this Court that the finding recorded by the Courts below on the question of bona fide Need is either perverse or based on misreading of evidence or recorded by ignoring relevant material on record. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made no attempt to demonstrate before this Court that the finding recorded by the Courts below on the question of bona fide Need is either perverse or based on misreading of evidence or recorded by ignoring relevant material on record. ( 20 ) THE learned counsel for the tenant, however, submits that the reasoning given by the appellate Court suffers from inherent contradiction inasmuch as, (according to the tenant) the relations between the landlords wife and the wife of Paritosh Kumar Gupta (son of the landlord) were not cordial Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition and there was no question of Paritosh Kumar Gupta and family to shift to Bareilly from Allahabad. ( 21 ) THE tenant, however, ignores that the aforesaid circumstance is not against the landlord but in fact supports the case of the landlord that he bona fide required separate accommodation to enable his son to have an independent residential establishment at Bareilly so that he and his family may look after the landlord and his wife besides living independently without interferences of each other (mother in law and daughter in law) and also have efficient management of his business. ( 22 ) THE building in question, as noted earlier in the judgment, is adjacent to the residential building in possession of the landlord. Both the buildings (residential units-one in possession of landlord and another in possession of the tenant) are independent having separate kitchen, toilet etc. The accommodation in question is that most suitable for the residence of the said son of the landlord at Bareilly as it will serve both the purposes-namely to look after the aged parents, while living in another independent and adjacent accommodation in question and also eliminate and avoid possibility of rifts and conflicts between his wife (mother-in-law) and the wife of the son (daughter-in-law) when accommodated in separate independent residential units. ( 23 ) THE above discussion contradicts the contention of the tenant-petitioner regarding alleged excess accommodation in the report of the Commissioner. Moreover, law does not require landlord and his adult married son with children to live in common in one building and have common facilities like-kitchen, toilet, etc. ( 23 ) THE above discussion contradicts the contention of the tenant-petitioner regarding alleged excess accommodation in the report of the Commissioner. Moreover, law does not require landlord and his adult married son with children to live in common in one building and have common facilities like-kitchen, toilet, etc. In order to preserve harmony it is a matter of common experience, it is desirable that the two Units of a family may live together without sacrificing privacy and independence of mess and other affairs like social visitors and attending Guests. Since the difference in age and the changed circumstances in which two generations have grown- do warrant independent living for maintaining good relations. ( 24 ) IN the case of Shiv Moorti Sharma v. VI Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 1999 Alld. Civil Journal 302 (Alld. High Court, Hon. Sudhir Narain, J.) it is held that the question of making an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself is unnecessary and not warranted in law. In other words, tenant cannot dictate the landlord to live in a particular way/manner. ( 25 ) IN the case of Amrit Lal Gupta v. Smt. Budhwani, AIR 1990 SC 1155 (Para 3) the Apex Court has held that the circumstance that the son of the land lady is required to come and live with his parents to assist them in their old age, is relevant for considering bona fide need of a landlord. ( 26 ) ANOTHER argument of the petitioner that the circumstance that the son of the landlord did not shift for last several years (from Allahabad to Bareilly) shows that the Courts below committed illegality in allowing the release application (para 18 and ground No. VIII of the Writ Petition ). ( 27 ) THIS contention of the tenant petitioner has no merit and deserves rejection in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, (2001) 2 SCC 604 (referred in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G. C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin, (2002) 1 SCC 610 : relied upon by the Tenant-Petitioner himself on another point ). Para 13 is quoted for reference :-"another reasoning of the Courts below is that as Rohit did not start the business between the years 1992 and 1997 by taking any property on rent, it could not be said that the appellant needed the suit premises to run the business. There is a categorical averment by the appellant that the business was to be started in the suit premise and the appellant would not be able to take any other premises on rent. Not starting the business in a rented premises during the abovementioned period, cannot be a ground to deny decree for eviction of the suit premises. This Court in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava relying on early decisions of this Court held that the crucial date for deciding as to bona fides of requirement of landlord is the date of his application for eviction. It was a case of bona fide requirement of the premises in question for starting a clinic by the son of the landlord. The litigation continued for 23 years and during that period the son of the landlord joined Provincial Medical Service and was posted at different places. The Court refused to take notice of the subsequent event holding that the crucial date was the date of filing of the eviction petition. ( 28 ) IN view of the said decision, argument of the tenant petitioner has no merit and the case of the landlord (which has been found true and correct by the two Courts below) cannot be questioned. Need of the landlord is justified, bona fide, genuine and his prayer for the release of the accommodation in question has to be allowed for the residence of his son who desired to settle at Bareilly to look after his parents and also for the betterment of his business prospects by having better management and effective control by establishing business headquarters at Bareilly. ( 29 ) THE landlord filed his affidavit and that of his son (Paritosh K. Gupta) both dated 7-3-95 and annexed therewith Medical Prescription to prove his ailments and also the certificates to show that his son has business over erstwhile entire U. P. , which included present Uttaranchal State also (Annexure C. A.-I and C. A.-II in the Writ Petition ). ( 30 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances need of the landlord cannot be said to be, mere whim or fanciful desire bereft of bona fide need or requirement. (II) The learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that hardship of the landlord as compared to the tenant, was more as compared to the tenant as he could not shift to an accommodation which is a Hotel and also that it belongs to a Company. ( 31 ) PERUSAL of the impugned judgments of the Courts below show that the tenant admitted that the Hotel chitra Gupt (opposite the accommodation in question) belonged to M/s. Nijhawan Hotels Private Limited with Deepak Nijhawan (the petitioner) as its Managing Director certain portions of the said Hotel having been let out on regular basis since hotel business as such was not running properly. ( 32 ) THE lower appellate Court in this context discussed in detail the evidence filed on behalf of the respective parties and case to the conclusion that certain portions of the Hotel were let out) particularly to one Ashfaq Ahmad) vide tenancy agreement dated 15-5-1998 at the rate of Rs. 3776. 00 per month) wherein Deepak Nijhawan signed in his own name and did not describe himself as the Managing Director of the said Company (M/s. Nijhawan Hotel Private Limited) which completely falsifies the stand taken by the tenant petitioner that he is not the owner in control of the hotel-building and that various portions of the same have already been let out to different tenants. This argument also fails. ( 33 ) THE lower appellate Court found that the tenant was financially sound and came to the conclusion that tenant was in a position to take another accommodation but he made no effort. The lower appellate Court, on the basis of detailed discussion, came to the conclusion that the landlord was to suffer more hardship as compared to the hardship to be suffered by tenant if the building was not released. The said finding of fact has not been shown to be vitiated. ( 34 ) APART from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the finding of the Court below that tenant made no effort to find out suitable accommodation; i. e. between the year 1993 and 1999. The said finding of fact has not been shown to be vitiated. ( 34 ) APART from the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the finding of the Court below that tenant made no effort to find out suitable accommodation; i. e. between the year 1993 and 1999. The Court below has categorically taken note of the fact that no attempt was made by the tenant to find out alternative suitable accommodation. This undisputed fact completely demolishes the contention of the tenant on the question of comparative hardship. ( 35 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, referred to the case of Gaya Prasad Sharma v. Om Prakash, 1996 (2) All RC 304 : (1996 AIHC 3316), Hon. . G. P. Mathur, J. All. H. C. para 6, wherein the Court observed that if a tenant makes no attempt to show that effort to get alternative/suitable accommodation was made, but failed; question of comparative hardship certainly tilts in favour of the landlord since aforesaid circumstance has relevant bearing while deciding the question of comparative hardship. ( 36 ) THE learned counsel for respondent landlord also relied upon the case of Sudarshan Singh v. Additional District Judge (Anti-Corruption, West), Lucknow, 1986 (2) All RC 280 : (1987 All LJ 574) (Alld. H. C. LB. Hon. D. S. Bajpai, J.) wherein the Court in para 3 of the judgment found that financial status of tenant was a relevant factor and if the tenant was financially sound, then it did go to show that the tenant had sufficient means to shift and he could not complain of hardship. In para 7 of this judgment Court also held that if tenant made no effort to find out suitable accommodation like exercising option to apply for allotment despite pendency of release proceeding, that will be a circumstance against him. In para 7 of this judgment Court also held that if tenant made no effort to find out suitable accommodation like exercising option to apply for allotment despite pendency of release proceeding, that will be a circumstance against him. Similar view is taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Kakkar v. XV Additional District Judge, Kanpur (sic) (para 6, Hon. G. P. Mathur, J.) ( 37 ) THE case of G. C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin, (2002) 1 SCC 610 relied upon by the petitioners counsel reads :-"it is settled position of law that bona fide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde this Court while considering the bona fide need of the landlord was of the view that when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation, he has to prove it but there is no warrant for "presuming that his need is not bona fide". It was also held that while deciding this question, the Court would look into the broad aspects and if the Court feels any doubt about bona fide requirement, it is for the landlord to clear such doubt. The other relevant Para Nos. 11 and 15 are quoted :-11. "regarding financial capacity of the appellant, the Courts below have held that the appellant did not have financial capacity. From records we find that the appellant produced revenue records to show his ownership over agricultural land in addition to the suit premises and made a categorical statement that he would be able to raise funds from financial institutions. Both the Courts below with mathematical precision considered this aspect while coming to the fact that he does not have financial capacity. We are of the view that these are irrelevant considerations as the question of having necessary funds to start the business is not at all necessary in view of the law laid down by this Court in the above decision, namely, Dattatraya Laxman Kumble. That apart, as the appellant has got immovable property it would not be difficult for him to raise necessary funds and, therefore, we hold that the finding on this point of the Courts below is not sustainable. "15. That apart, as the appellant has got immovable property it would not be difficult for him to raise necessary funds and, therefore, we hold that the finding on this point of the Courts below is not sustainable. "15. "it is on record that the tenant has purchased the adjoining property. He has stated in the written statement that he is a prosperous businessmen. From the report of the Commissioner appointed by the Court we find that in the property purchased by the tenant a mezzanine floor has been constructed and that suit premise is used only to store spare parts. The tenant has got other premises wherefrom he is running his business. On the other hand the appellant has no other premises except the suit premises to start the proposed business of his son. We, therefore, hold that the landlord would suffer greater hardship if eviction is refused. " ( 38 ) THE above paras do not support the petitioner but on the other hand support the case of the landlord respondent. ( 39 ) PETITIONER relied upon the case of Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, 2001 All Civil Journal 1355. ( 40 ) THE said case is distinguishable on facts as is evident and can be seen on perusal of paras 17 and 18 of the judgment in the case of Deena Nath :"17. Coming to the case on hand, the judgment of the High Court clearly bears out the position that the lower Courts had failed to consider the requirement of the section regarding availability of reasonable accommodation in occupation of the appellant landlord. As noted earlier, at the time of filing the suit, one vacant shop room was in occupation of the landlord and in course of the proceedings one more shop room, on being vacated by the tenant, came in his occupation. The High Court has found that the landlord could easily make arrangements for starting the shop which his son Pradeep Kumar Gupta intends to open in the vacant shop rooms. If any adjustment was necessary, then the respondent tenant could also have been offered an alternative shop room for his occupation. No such step was taken by the landlord during all these years. If any adjustment was necessary, then the respondent tenant could also have been offered an alternative shop room for his occupation. No such step was taken by the landlord during all these years. During the hearing of this appeal, we made a suggestion to the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant landlord, whether he is willing to permit the respondent tenant to occupy the shop room presently is his (landlord) occupation so that he may have a block of four shop rooms for the business of himself and his son. The learned counsel stated that the landlord, who was present in the Court, declined to accept the suggestion. 18. On the discussions in the judgment there is hardly any scope for doubt that the requirement of the landlord cannot be termed to be a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the statute (noticed above ). The High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent judgments in the contextual facts and the same does not warrant any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. " ( 41 ) SECONDLY, there is no scope of reappreciating evidence in the instant case as already discussed above, and therefore said decision renders no help to the petitioner. (III) The third and last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with reference to para 4 of the Rejoinder Affidavit. It is argued that an agreement to sell the building in question has been executed by the landlord in favour of one Subhash Chandra Sharma dated 13-4-2001; that Subhash Chandra Sharma has also filed suit for executing registered agreement to sell containing terms and conditions in the aforementioned unregistered document dated 13-4-2001, which shows that landlord did not require the accommodation for his personal use and hence need of the landlord was not bona fide and genuine. ( 42 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent in reply referred to para 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 24-1-2002 sworn by Sri P. K. Gupta (son of the landlord) as pairokar of the Respondent No. 3, wherein contents of para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit have been denied and it is asserted that no agreement to sell dated 13-4-2001 was ever executed by respondent in favour of Subhash Chandra Sharma with respect to the building in question. In para 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit it has been categorically stated that Respondent No. 3 had no knowledge of suit No. 614 of 2001 alleged to have been filed by Subhash Chandra Sharma. Copy of the plaint of said suit No. 614 of 2001 (Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Ram Narain Gupta) has been filed as Annexure 2 to the rejoinder affidavit sworn on 13-1-2002 and the plaint purports to have been signed and verified on 21-12-2001 and the copy of the rejoinder affidavit was served on the learned counsel for the respondent on 23-1-2002. The landlord respondent filed supplementary counter-affidavit (sworn on 24-1-2002) and served its copy on the learned counsel for the petitioner the same day. This clearly shows that supplementary counter-affidavit was filed without losing even a single day whereby the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent controverted the allegations made in para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit. The allegations regarding alleged agreement to sell and filing of original suit No. 614 of 2001 by Subhash Chandra Sharma have been made for the first time in para 4 of the said rejoinder affidavit. Supplementary counter-affidavit has been sworn by Sri Paritosh Kumar Gupta (son of the landlord) as pairokar and in para 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is categorically stated that no agreement to sell dated 13-4-2001 was executed by the landlord as alleged, in favour of Subhash Chandra Sharma with respect to the disputed premises and that the landlord had no knowledge of the pendency of the said suit No. 614 of 2001 filed by Subhash Chandra Sharma. Copy of the plaint of said suit No. 614 of 2001 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the rejoinder affidavit and purports to have been signed and verified on 21-12-2001. ( 43 ) FROM the dates noted above it is clear that though the plaint of said suit No. 614 of 2001, according to the petitioner himself, purports to have been signed and verified by Subhash Chand Sharma on 21-12-2001, yet a copy of it is annexed with the said rejoinder affidavit sworn on 13-1-2002 i. e. within three weeks (approximately ). ( 44 ) IN spite of having carefully gone through the rejoinder affidavit and the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 17-3-2002. ( 44 ) IN spite of having carefully gone through the rejoinder affidavit and the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 17-3-2002. I failed to find important particulars/details as to when, how and from whom the petitioner came to know of the pendency of the alleged suit and that too within about three weeks time of filing of the plaint (when he is not a party to the said suit ). Non-disclosure and absence of such important but also relevant facts, which not only make one, feel surprised, inquisitive create a strong doubt and compel one to arrive at one and one conclusion alone that the said suit has been filed by Subhash Chand Sharma on the prompting and at the instance of the tenant petitioner himself in order to forge and fabricate circumstances to prejudice the case of the landlord as well as a well thought/preplanned strategy to defeat the claim of release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord in question in the present writ proceedings. Moreover, Deepak Nijhawan the petitioner (Deponent of the rejoinder affidavit) has sworn part of relevant para 4 on personal knowledge and part on the basis of information received from the record. Allegation that there was some agreement on 13-4-2001 between present landlord and one Subhash Chand could be sworn only on the basis of information from 3rd person whose identity has not been disclosed. The petitioner cannot claim to have personal knowledge of such on agreement. The fact that the petitioner came to know of the existence of original suit No. 614 of 2001 (Plaint dated 21-12-2001) prior to filing of the rejoinder affidavit (sworn on 13-1-2002) leaves no scope for doubt that Deepak Nijhawan is the propagator of the theory of alleged agreement dated 13-4-2001 and alleged theory of oral agreement, etc. is a cooked up story. is a cooked up story. ( 45 ) BESIDES the above, the Apex Court in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 (1) All RC 352 and (2002) 1 SCC 610 , G. C. Kapoor v. N. K. Bhasin, has held that subsequent changes after filing of release application need not be seen inasmuch as it is the need of the landlord on the date of filing of an application which is relevant subject however to the condition that the basic features of the case are not changed namely, landlord who is an old man, requires the building in question for the residential use of his son, who may look after his aged parents and also manage his business efficiently. None of the aforesaid circumstances have changed or disappeared and on the other hand, by passage of time aggravated and the need of the landlord, with growing age must have become more grave. ( 46 ) THE findings of facts, recorded by the two Courts below, cannot be vitiated, as they are neither perverse or based on misreading of evidence on record. ( 47 ) THERE is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the two Courts below concurrently allowing the release application filed by the landlord. ( 48 ) NO other point has been raised or urged. ( 49 ) THE writ petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. ( 50 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .