Judgment – By means of these petitions, moved under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 03-032003 passed by respondent No.2, and order dated 30-09-2003, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the landlord's release application was allowed in respect of the accommodations in the occupation of the petitioners and appeals against said order passed by Prescribed Authority were dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.3, Manmohan Kumar Nagalia, in both the above cases, is a landlord of the premises occupied 005(2) M/s Babu Ram by the petitioners as his tenants. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was moved against the petitioners and two other tenants by the respondent No.3 for release of the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners and two other tenants, which was registered as Prescribed Authority Case No. 112 of 1998. According to said application, the house in question is a double storied house to which U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable. The respondent No.3 (landlord) lives alongwith his family in the first floor of the house. He is a Senior Scientist in Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun. His wife is suffering from Arthritis and is unable to climb the staircase. It is further stated that his son Nishant has also become major. It is also alleged that since the petitioner is a Scientist, he has to use library, as such, for all these reasons he has a need of the rooms of the ground floor and the two rooms in the first floor are insufficient for his family. The respondent No.3, in the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, has stated that his another house at Pepal Mandi, Dehradun is a Joint property, which is being used as residence of servant and for keeping the agricultural equipments etc. and cannot be used for residential purposes. The tenants, including the petitioners, contested said release application by filing their written statements, in which it has been stated that the petitioners are using accommodations with them for commercial purposes. and cannot be used for residential purposes. The tenants, including the petitioners, contested said release application by filing their written statements, in which it has been stated that the petitioners are using accommodations with them for commercial purposes. The need shown by the landlord is denied by the petitioners and it has been stated that the respondent No. 3 has ample property not only in Pepal Mandi but also in Ajabpur Kalan. Challenging the order of the learned lower appellate court, it has been stated that accommodation occupied by the petitioners have wrongly been released by appellate court. In respect of rest of the two tenants their appeals were allowed by said court. It is further alleged in the petition before this Court that learned lower appellate court has ignored Rule 16(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. The illness of the wife of the respondent No.3 was also denied by the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 also on the ground that said court has ignored the fact that prior to moving the application for release of the accommodation in 1998, landlord got vacated another portion of the ground floor and let out the same to National Sales Corporation. Had there been a genuine need of the landlord, he would not have let out the ground floor In the year 1998. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 stating that the petitioner, M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad have following other godowns in their occupation : i) A big godown of about 5500 soft area having open and constructed portion Is at 38 Raja Road. Petitioner is the owner of this godown. ii) A double godown (two joined godowns) at 44 Raja Road. In these godowns the petitioner is tenant. iii) Another bid godown at 36 Raja Road. The petitioner is owner of this godown. Iv) The petitioner has vacated two big god owns (one having area of about 200 sq. ft. and the other godown of about 400 sq. ft. area) situated at Raja Road, of Sri Jitendra Kumar Nagalia in October 1998 In an arrangement with said landlord. v) A big shop at 24 Raja Road. From this shop petitioner Is doing business. The respondent No.3 has denied having owned any house In Ajabpur Kalan. ft. and the other godown of about 400 sq. ft. area) situated at Raja Road, of Sri Jitendra Kumar Nagalia in October 1998 In an arrangement with said landlord. v) A big shop at 24 Raja Road. From this shop petitioner Is doing business. The respondent No.3 has denied having owned any house In Ajabpur Kalan. Answering respondent has asserted that he Is a man of status having very high professional qualification. It is further stated In the counter affidavit that learned lower appellate court have not Ignored Rule 16(2) while deciding the appeal of the petitioners. 4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available before this Court. 5. There is no dispute as to the fact that respondent No.3 Is landlord of the petitioners and he is living in the first floor. It is also not disputed that the accommodations sought to be released are in the ground floor. Status of respondent No. 3 is also not disputed. The main dispute relates as to the need of the landlord, If the same Is genuine and also as to the comparative hardship between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent No.1 while dismissing the appeal has erred in law as It has not given any finding as to the bonafide need of the landlord. I have gone through the judgment of the learned appellate court and also that of the prescribed authority. In the judgment of the learned prescribed authority, the bonafide need of the landlord and also greater comparative hardship in his favour, has been discussed and categorical finding has been given on the points. Learned appellate court (respondent No.1) has also discussed the evidence and concurred with the findings of the prescribed authority regarding the accommodations in question occupied by the petitioners. Had there been reversal of the findings, it could have been stated that the learned appellate court has not given its own categorical finding as to the bonafide need and comparative hardship. After discussing the evidence at length, if the learned appellate court agrees with the findings of the prescribed authority, It amounts giving same categorical findings which has been given by the prescribed authority. As such, I see no force In the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 6. After discussing the evidence at length, if the learned appellate court agrees with the findings of the prescribed authority, It amounts giving same categorical findings which has been given by the prescribed authority. As such, I see no force In the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 6. The another point argued on behalf of the petitioners is that, the respondent No.3 owns a house In Pepal Mandi also and his need for additional accommodation can be satisfied from the same. From the evidence on record, it has come that the first floor of the house in question is being used by the respondent No. 3 as residential house. The house in Pepai Mandi Is not being used for residential purposes. The wife of respondent No.3 is suffering from Arthritis and she has problem In climbing the staircase. It is but natural that respondent No.3 would seek release of the accommodations of ground floor of such house Instead of shifting to another house in Pepal Mandl, which is not a residential house. In view of the evidence on record as to the growing family of respondent No.3, Illness of his wife and his being Senior Scientist, considering his need for library, learned prescribed authority has rightly found need of the landlord to be bonafide and the appellate court has rightly concurred with said findings. Even if erroneous to some extent, the findings challenged before this Court in its present form, cannot be said to be perverse or against the law. As such the suggestion of the petitioner, that respondent house in Pepal Mandi, cannot be accepted. 7. In M.L. Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singhal reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 355, the Apex court has expressed the view that the landlord cannot be expected to shift his residence in the alternative accommodation used by servants nor can be forced to split up his family. 8. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 16(2) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is ignored by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate court. 8. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 16(2) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is ignored by the prescribed authority as well as the appellate court. My attention has been drawn to Rule 16(2)(c) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, which reads as under : "(2) While considering an application for release under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 in respect of building let out for purposes of any business the prescribed authority shall also have regard to such facts as the following :- (a) . (b) . (c) the greater the existing business of the landlords own part from the business proposed to be set up in the leased premises, the less the justification for allowing the application, and even if an application is allowed in such a case, the prescribed authority may on the application of the tenant impose the condition where the landlord has available within him other accommodation (whether subject to the Act or not) which is not suitable for his own proposed business but may serve the purpose of the tenant, that the landlord shall let out that accommodation to the tenant on a fair rent to be fixed by the prescribed authority. (d) …….. " The above provision is applicable only when the existing business of the landlord was found greater in his own part as compared to the business proposed to be set up in the leased premises. In the present case, the landlord is using first floor for residential purposes and wants to occupy the ground floor for his future residential needs. As such, there Is no applicability of clause (c) of subrule (2) of Rule 16, to the present case. 9. In view of above discussion, I see no error of law in the impugned order, nor does it require interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by this Court. Accordingly, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Both the petitions are dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioners (tenants) are allowed three months time from today to vacate the premises occupied by them. No order as to costs.