JUDGMENT 1. By means of this writ .petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/tenant has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17-10-1988 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the Rent Control Appeal No. 29 of 1984 has been allowed and the order dated 27-09-1984 passed by Prescribed Authority has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is tenant In a residential accommodation situated in Mohalla Kaladhungi Road Chauraha, Haldwani, Nainital. The accommodation under tenancy consists of two living rooms, one store room, one first floor room, open terrace and a Kitchen in the second floor. The family of the petitioner/ tenant consists of 10 members. Sri Jahar Mal, father of respondent no. 2Sri Lalit Kumar, is owner of various properties including the accommodation in question. Respondent no. 2- Sri Lalit Kumar (since deceased) moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for release of the aforesaid accommodation on 18-10-1978 on the basis that in family partition the disputed accommodation has come in his share. Alleging his need for the accommodation in question, the respondent no.2 sought release of aforesaid accommodation, In this writ petition it is stated that the father and son were in collusion and the two were interested to oust the petitioner so they may get some PAGRI. The petitioner contested the said applicant and filed his written statement stating that Jahar Mal also earlier instituted suits for eviction of the petitioner, which failed, and, therefore, showing now a sham partition the present application for release was moved by the 'respondent no.2. It Is further alleged that In the written statement before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner pleaded that the respondent no.2 has one house in Bhola Nath garden, Haldwani in which there are 16 rooms and he has no need of the accommodation in question. The Prescribed Authority after taking in to consideration the affidavits and evidence filed by the parties came to the conclusion that alleged family partition is not real one and as such it did not find the need of the land-lord to be genuine and rejected the release application. The Prescribed Authority after taking in to consideration the affidavits and evidence filed by the parties came to the conclusion that alleged family partition is not real one and as such it did not find the need of the land-lord to be genuine and rejected the release application. Aggrieved by the said order respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the District Judge which was numbered as 29/1984 and transferred to the court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Nainital, who after hearing the .parties and perusing the record found that the family partition did take place and respondent no.2 had no accommodation except the disputed one. As such his need was found to be genuine, and In view of the comparative hardship also In his favour the appeal was allowed on 17-10-1988 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within 60 days. The petitioner/tenant aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the alleged partition was sham. It is also alleged In the writ petition that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide nor is there comparative hardship in his favour as against the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 2- Sri Lalit Kumar (since deceased), before Allahabad High Court where this Writ Petition was filed in the year 1988 (Writ Petition is transferred to this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Re-organisation Act, 2000, for its disposal). In counter affidavit it is stated by the respondent no.2 that the deponent does not own any other residential accommodation except the present one. It is further stated in his counter affidavit that the family partition was genuine and necessary entries were also made in the Municipal records. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that need of the answering respondent/landlord is genuine and bonafide as he is compelled to live after partition, with his father only In one room accommodation. It is wrong to say that the theory of family partition was invented to oust the petitioner. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner himself tendered rent to the answering respondent as such he is aware of the fact that the respondent no.2 was the landlord and not his father (Jahar Mal). It is wrong to say that the theory of family partition was invented to oust the petitioner. It is also alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner himself tendered rent to the answering respondent as such he is aware of the fact that the respondent no.2 was the landlord and not his father (Jahar Mal). Defending the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Authority it is stated that actually the Prescribed Authority erred in law in rejecting the release application. In Para-25 of the counter affidavit it has been stated in fact respondent no. 2 had need of the accommodation in question as he got married and it was not possible for him to live in a single room with his father and other brothers. 4. During the pendency of writ petition it appears that respondent no. 2- Sri Lalit Kumar died and his wife and children were impleaded as respondent no. 2/1 to 2/4 in the year 1993. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and that of respondent no. 2/1 to 2/4 and perused the record. I have also gone through the affidavits and written arguments submitted by the parties. 6. Admittedly petitioner is tenant in the accommodation in question, now for more than 30 years. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that after the alleged family partition when the petitioner tendered rent to Jahar Mal he refused to accept the same and thereafter he tendered it to respondent no.2 and the petitioner has accepted the same. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that the family partition was sham invented only to oust the petitioner from accommodation in question. However, the record shows that after partition, the respondent no.2 have got entered his name in the Municipal records. Considering the fact as has been stated in the affidavits filed in support of the respondent no. 2/landlord, it is clear that after marriage of respondent no.2 he had a genuine bonafide need for separate accommodation and he could not have been expected to live with his wife in a single room in which father and brothers of respondent no.2 were also living. 2/landlord, it is clear that after marriage of respondent no.2 he had a genuine bonafide need for separate accommodation and he could not have been expected to live with his wife in a single room in which father and brothers of respondent no.2 were also living. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that Jahar Mal father of the respondent no.2 and his brothers own huge property in which there are as many as 16 rooms but he failed to show this court that those rooms were vacant or if said rooms were in the share of the respondent no.2. Merely by stating that Jahar Mal and his sons owned several properties does not dilute the case of the respondent no.2 who has a separate family of his own and had got his shares partitioned from his family property. In my opinion the Prescribed Authority wrongly treated the family partition to be a sham transaction and learned Appellate Court-respondent no.1 rightly allowed the appeal holding the need of the respondent no.2 to be genuine and bonafide. 7. On behalf of the appellant my attention was drawn to the principle of law laid down in Smt. Kora Devi and others Vs. IVth Addl. District Judge, Nainital 1988 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases page-545. I have gone through the said case law. There is no similarity of facts of said case with the present one. What has been held in the said case is this that the Appellate Court should record the reasons after discussing the evidence on record. In the present case learned Appellate Court has discussed the evidence on record. Also, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant referred the principle of law laid down in Smt. Ramkali and others Vs. IVth Additional District Judge, Jhansi and others 1992 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases, page-469. I have gone through the said Judgment also. In Smt. Ramkafi's case the landlord failed to establish the family partition which is not the case here as the landlord has successfully proved his case pleaded in the release application. My attention was, also drawn to the case law reported in Abdul Hai Khan Vs. The II Additional District Judge, 1981 Allahabad Rent Cases, page-11. In the said case Allahabad High Court has observed that number of rooms in occupation of the landlord, which he acquired during the pendency of release application, should also be considered. My attention was, also drawn to the case law reported in Abdul Hai Khan Vs. The II Additional District Judge, 1981 Allahabad Rent Cases, page-11. In the said case Allahabad High Court has observed that number of rooms in occupation of the landlord, which he acquired during the pendency of release application, should also be considered. I agree with the said principle of law but the petitioner failed to show me the other accommodations available with the respondent no.2-landlord. Lastly the case of Anil Kumar Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge, Moradabad, 1989 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases, page-117 was referred in which it has been held that mere showing the tenanted accommodation has come in the share of landlord's family in partition, does not make out the case by itself for release unless need is shown to be genuine. In the present case respondent no.2 had categorically stated in his counter affidavit that after marriage it was not possible for him to live in a single room with his father and other brothers. This fact clearly makes out the case of genuine and bonafide need of landlord in the present case. 8. As to the comparative hardship learned Appellate Court (respondent no.1) has rightly discussed that If after partition, after the landlord has lost his share in the property he was living till partition, he would suffer great hardship in living there. It would certainly be mercy of his father and brothers to permit him to stay with them. Learned Appellate Court has considered the hardship of the tenant lesser as against of the landlord as the tenant had failed to make any sincere efforts to seek alternative accommodation elsewhere. It cannot be expected from the landlord that he would provide him alternative accommodation to the tenant. Moreover finding as to the bonafide need of the landlord and that of comparative hardship In his favour cannot be interfered in writ Jurisdiction unless the same are perverse or against the principles of law which is not the case here. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition Is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed 30 days time from today to vacate the premises in question. No order as to costs.