ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 34176 of 2000 and 34178 of 2000 filed by Sri S. B. Bhardwaj (since deceased) and now represented through his legal heirs and Sri R. S. Misra challenging the common orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority under the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, since raise common question of facts and law, thus being disposed of by this judgment together. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition being Writ Petition No. 34176 of 2000 are that respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In both the petitions, who were admittedly residing in house no. 13/152, Parmat, Kanpur, purchased premises No. 112/329, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, which had four tenants in different co-tenements, filed an application against all the four tenants for the release of the accommodation in respect of tenancy of all the co-tenements Including the petitioners under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the act) on the ground as would be clear from the perusal of the application, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition, which is almost verbatim copy of the other application and I am told that similar applications were also filed against two other tenants, wherein the need has been set up that the landlord requires at least seven rooms. All the four applications since relate to the same building in which all the co-tenements were residing, the prescribed Authority consolidated all the four applications as the same set of evidence have been led by the landlord and almost same set of evidence was led by the defendants qua their individual status and personally. Two applications filed against Rajan Malia and Smt. C. K. Kohli were allowed by the Prescribed Authority, whereas two applications filed against R. S. Misra and S. B. Bhardwaj were rejected by the Prescribed Authority. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that four appeals were filed by all the four tenants being Rent Appeal No. 133 of 1996, Rajan Malia v. Udai Narayan Misra and Ors. , which arises out of the Prescribed authority Rent Case No. 173 of 1987, Vdai Narayan and Ors. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that four appeals were filed by all the four tenants being Rent Appeal No. 133 of 1996, Rajan Malia v. Udai Narayan Misra and Ors. , which arises out of the Prescribed authority Rent Case No. 173 of 1987, Vdai Narayan and Ors. v. Rajan Malia ; second Kent appeal No. 134 of 1996, Smt. C. K. Kohli v. Vdai Narayan Misra and Ors. arises out of Rent case No. 104 of 1986, Vdai Narayan Misra and Ors. v. C. K. Kohli ; third Rent Appeal No. . 141 of 1996. Vdai Narayan Misra and Ors. v. R. S. Misra arises out of Rent Case No. 1999 of 1985. Vdai Narayan Misra and Ors. v. R. S. Misra and the fourth Rent Appeal No. 166 of 1996. Vdai narayan Misra and Ors. v. S. B. Bhardwaj arises out of Rent Case No. 200 of 1985, Vday narayan Misra and Ors. v. S. B. Bhardwaj. The appellate authority consolidated and heard all the four appeals together and has allowed two rent appeals being Rent Appeal Nos. 133 of 1996 and 134 of 1996 and also rejected two appeals being Appeal Nos. 141 of 1996 and 166 of 1996. ( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding that the building in question, i. e. , 112/329, saraswati Sadan. Swaroop Nagar. Kanpur in which four tenants are residing there is some other accommodation which is in possession of the landlord. It is also stated by the Prescribed authority that all the four tenements consist of three rooms each with kitchen, latrine and bathroom. Two applications being Rent Case Nos. 104 of 1986 and 173 of 1987 have been accepted and the accommodation was said to be released in favour of the landlord : in the result at least six rooms, two kitchens, two latrines and two bathrooms were already released in favour of the landlord, whereas in all four applications filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the landlord has set up the need of seven rooms in all. Thus, according to the Prescribed Authoritys judgment dated 13. 8. Thus, according to the Prescribed Authoritys judgment dated 13. 8. 1996 in Writ Petition No. 34176 of 2000, it has been held that two rooms were already in possession of the landlord before filing of the application and now six rooms have been released in the aforesaid two Rent Cases being 104 of 1986 and 173 of 1987. Thus, the landlord would be entitled to possess eight rooms, which is more than what has been set up as requirement in the impugned release application. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, rejected two applications being Rent Case Nos. 199 of 1985 and 200 of 1985. It has also been stated by the tenants that Udai Narayan Misra is not permanently residing at Kanpur, but is residing at gonda where his wife is residing along with the parents of Udai Narayan Misra. The appellate authority connected all the four rent appeals ; two filed by the landlord and two by the petitioners-tenants. The appellate authority has allowed two appeals filed by the landlord Udai narayan Misra i. e. , Rent Appeal Nos. 141 of 1996 and 166 of 1996 against the present petitioners, namely, R. S. Misra and S. B. Bhardwaj and two rent appeals filed by the tenants, namely, Rajan Malia and Smt. C. K. Kohli being Rent Appeal Nos. 133 of 1996 and 134 of 1996 were dismissed with the result that all the four applications filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act stand allowed and premises No. 112/329, Saraswati Sadan, Swaroop Nagar, kanpur which was in occupation of the tenants, stood released in favour of the landlord. 133 of 1996 and 134 of 1996 were dismissed with the result that all the four applications filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act stand allowed and premises No. 112/329, Saraswati Sadan, Swaroop Nagar, kanpur which was in occupation of the tenants, stood released in favour of the landlord. ( 5 ) IT is further submitted that Rajan Malia, one of the tenants of the aforesaid accommodation also filed writ petition before this Court against the order impugned in the present writ petition, but ultimately that writ petition was not pressed as in the meantime, it appears that Raja Malia has settled down somewhere else with the result that the factual position of the rooms is same as it was at the time when appeals were filed before the appellate authority, namely, that two tenements occupied by Rajan Malia and Smt. C. K. Kohli, who did not approach this Court against the order impugned in the present writ petition, stood released in favour of the landlord and during the pendency of the present writ petition, it was stated at bar that the landlord got possession of the same. In this view of the matter, the order of the Prescribed Authority with the finding that it is own case of the landlord that he has two rooms in his possession when he filed applications against all the four tenants, as stated above, and by virtue of the orders passed in the case of Rajan Malia and Smt. C. K. Kohli, he has got more than six rooms, two kitchens, two latrines and two bathrooms, apart from what was already in his possession stood released and he occupied the same. A vague attempt has been made by Udai Narayan Misra, Advocate, the landlord who appeared in person that he has not yet got the possession, but there is no document to support his contention while arguments in these two writ petitions were on that the tenants offered that in case the accommodation, which was in possession of the landlord at Parmat. Kanpur, is allotted to them ; they are prepared to shift even from the accommodation in question, but this counter vague reply came this Court vide its order dated 29. 4. 2002 when adjourned the case to 1. 5. Kanpur, is allotted to them ; they are prepared to shift even from the accommodation in question, but this counter vague reply came this Court vide its order dated 29. 4. 2002 when adjourned the case to 1. 5. 2002 to enable the learned counsel for the petitioners to file a supplementary-affidavit as directed by this Court vide its order dated 22. 4. 2002. The order dated 22. 4. 2002 passed by this court is reproduced below : "honble Anjani Kumar. J.--Put up on Monday, i. e. , 29th April, 2002. In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner shall file supplementary-affidavit stating therein that House No. 13/152 is in possession of the respondents or is in occupation of any other person and whether the same are under the allotment order or not. Dated : 22. 4. 2002 sd. A, Kumar. J. " ( 6 ) ON 1. 5. 2002, an affidavit was filed, which was sworn by Naveen Bhardwaj, in compliance with the Courts order dated 29. 4. 2002, wherein he has stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order, he approached the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, but he has refused to divulge any information on the ground that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is not directed by this court to supply any information. ( 7 ) IT is in this background, it is made clear by the order dated 29. 4. 2002 that the Rent Control and eviction Officer is equally directed as well, who is also party in the writ petition, who shall now submit the said information either himself, or through some pairokar. ( 8 ) THE petitioners as well as the respondent-landlord filed affidavits in whtch contradictory stands have been taken with regard to the availability of the house at Parmat, Kanpur in which the landlord was residing at the time of filing of the applications under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act. However, from the versions available on the record by means of the supplementary-affidavit, it is clear that the said accommodation situated at Parmat, Kanpur, is still in possession of the landlord, who is not satisfied even after the requirement set up by him in the release applications having been made because of the release of two accommodations by the two tenants, as stated above, was in his statement in the supplementary-affidavit. ( 9 ) FROM the facts stated above, the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in its judgment that after the release of two accommodations, which were occupied by Rajan Malta and Smt. C. K. Kohli the need, as set up by the landlord in his application, stood already satisfied. The need set up against the present two petitioners cannot be said to be bona fide at all because of the subsequent circumstances, which have come into existence after the decision by the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority. The Appellate Authority, in my opinion, has travelled beyond the scope of the appeal as he has unnecessarily harboured on the ground that during the pendency of the case before the appellate authority, one of the tenants of the present writ petitions has since purchased the accommodation, therefore. In his case Explanation of section 21 of the Act will apply. Without entering into this disputed question as to whether the accommodation purchased by one of the tenants is vacant or not, in the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority has to see first as to whether the need set up by the landlord is bona fide so as to warrant the subsequent step as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act with regard to the comparative hardship. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Apex court in Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Sita Ram, 2001 (3) AWC 1997 (SC) : (2001) 4 SCC 478 , in which Honble Supreme Court has ruled that "the Prescribed Authority having found that the need is not bona fide, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and the view by the High court that even though the need is not bona fide, the comparison of the hardship has to be done is not correct. Once the authorities come to the conclusion that the need is not bona fide, the application deserves to be dismissed without entering into as to whether the tilts of the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord or not. Once the authorities come to the conclusion that the need is not bona fide, the application deserves to be dismissed without entering into as to whether the tilts of the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord or not. " The another decision relied upon by learned petitioners counsel is in M. S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan, JT 1998 (8) SC 262, He further relied upon a decision of learned single Judge in Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor v. IVth Additional district Judge, Bareilly and Ors. , 1988 (2) ARC 496, wherein learned single Judge of this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Variety Emporium v. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim. AIR 1985 SC 207 , has held that the subsequent fact has to be looked into by the appellate authority. He further relied upon -a decision in Deena Nath v. Popran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 , wherein the apex Court has ruled that "the statutory requirement is that there must be an actual pressing need, not a mere whim or fanciful desire ; it must be i n praesenti ; and also landlord must not be in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the town or city concerned. " ( 11 ) SRI Udai Narayan Misra, who appeared in person, has relied upon two decisions in Daley ram v. IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut and Ors. , 1995 (1) ARC 198 and Mahinder Singh and Anr. v. VIth Additional District Judge, Meerut and Ors. , 1999 All LJ 690. I have gone through both the decisions relied upon by Sri Misra. The facts of these cases are quite different with the facts of the present case and ratio of these cases cannot be compared, therefore, it will not help the landlord. ( 12 ) I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the prescribed authority that after the release of two accommodations, which were under the tenancy of Rajan Malia and Smt. C. K. Kohli, the need stood fulfilled as set up by the landlord in the application under Section 21 (1 ). (a) of the Act and nothing has been brought on record that any subsequent need for additional accommodation is set up by the landlord. (a) of the Act and nothing has been brought on record that any subsequent need for additional accommodation is set up by the landlord. Thus, the view taken to the contrary by the appellate authority with regard to the bona fide need of the landlord deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. ( 13 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the judgment and order of the appellate authority against two present petitioners deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The order of the prescribed authority against these two present petitioners is upheld. In view of the findings recorded above, since the landlord has already got an additional accommodation and release of the accommodation is not set up by him, the application against these two petitioners under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act stands dismissed. ( 14 ) FOR the discussion and reasons stated above, these two writ petitions are allowed. The order of the appellate authority dated 30. 5. 2000 is quashed. The order of the prescribed authority dated 13. 8. 1996 is upheld. The application filed by the landlord against these two present petitioners under Section 21 (1) fa; of the Act stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. .