S. U. KHAN, J. Even though tenant respondent No. 2 has been served through refusal as is evident from office report dated 9- 5-2005 however neither he has appeared nor engaged any Counsel. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, landlady. 3. This writ petition arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated: by landlady petitioner against tenant respondent No. 2 for his eviction from the house in dispute, which is in his tenancy occupation, on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ). The release application was registered as case No. 20 of 1984 on the file of prescribed authority/munsif Khurja. The rate of rent is Rs. 7. 50/- per month Landlady pleaded that previously she was residing with his son Jai Prakash however for about an year his relations with Jai Prakash were not good and Jai Prakash had compelled her to leave his house and she was residing in the house of Ashok Kumar one of her relatives as licencee. The aforesaid Ashok Kumar also filed his affidavit supporting the case of the landlady. Husband of the landlady had died much before filing of the release application. Prescribed authority on 13-4-1987 allowed the release application. Tenant respondent No. 2 filed Rent Control Appeal No. 16 of 1987 against the order of the prescribed authority under Section 22 of the Act IX Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr on 22-3-1990, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the prescribed authority, hence this writ petition by landlady. 4. Appellate Court took a strange view of the matter and held that it was not shown that Ashok Kumar had initiated any proceedings for eviction of the petitioner. The occupation of a house by landlady as licensee can never be a ground for rejecting her release application for requirement of her own house vide M. E. Kshirsagan v. M/s. Traders and Agencies, AIR 1997 SC 59. 5. Strained relations in between the mother in law and daughter- in-law are proverbial not only in India but in the entire world. There was nothing unusual in the statement of the petitioner landlady that she was not having good terms/relations with his son and sons wife. 6. 5. Strained relations in between the mother in law and daughter- in-law are proverbial not only in India but in the entire world. There was nothing unusual in the statement of the petitioner landlady that she was not having good terms/relations with his son and sons wife. 6. Even otherwise tenant pleaded that landlady alongwith her family including Jai Prakash and his family was residing comfortably in the house of Sunder Lal, which is quite sufficient. Even if this assertion is accepted, it will not help the tenant in the least. If landlady is residing alongwith her family in the house of some other person either as tenant or licensee, it is not a good ground to reject the release application, rather it is a very strong ground to allow the release application vide G. K. Devi v. Ghanshyam Das, AIR 2000 SC 656 . 7. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company, AIR 1999 SC 100 , it has been held that the fact that landlord is residing comfortably with daughter-in-law is no ground to reject the release application. 8. Regarding comparative hardship also the Lower Appellate Court took into consideration the accommodations of Ashok Kumar and Sunder Lal, which was not permissible. The tenant also did not show as to what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This by itself is sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant and in favour of the landlady as held by the Supreme Court in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 . 9. In view of the above, judgment of the Appellate Court is patently erroneous in law and liable to the quashed. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the prescribed authority is restored. 11. However as no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 the tenant hence before passing actual order of eviction in execution proceedings under Section 23 of the Act which may be initiated by the landlady petitioner prescribed authority shall issue notice to respondent No. 2. Petition allowed. .