JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent against the tenant on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of rent Case No. 100 of 1992. Prescribed Authority/VIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar dismissed the release application through judgment and order dated 18.3.1999. Against the said judgment and order Surya Kumar Pandey landlord respondent filed rent appeal No. 71 of 1999, A.D.J. Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar, through judgment and order dated 22.7.2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of landlord-respondent, hence this writ petition by tenant petitioner. 3. Property in dispute consists of two rooms, common latrine, bath room and Balkani on the first floor of house No. 128/2-C Kidwai Nagar Kanpur. Landlord stated that adjoining portion of the same house was in his possession which consisted of only two rooms on the first floor. Landlord further pleaded that his family consisted of himself, his wife and son Ashish Kumar. It was further stated that Smt. Mohani Devi, daughter of real brother of the landlord was also residing with the landlord alongwith her husband Vinod and two sons Parol and Rahul. It was further stated that occasionally Smt. Savitri Misra, married daughter of the landlord visited him alongwith his family and there was no accommodation available to the landlord to adjust her. It was further stated by the landlord that the tenant had constructed his own house at 245, Shankaracharya Nagar Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur and tenant was running a coaching center under the name and style of Adarsh Coaching Center from accommodation in dispute which was taken by him on rent for residential purposes. 4. It was also stated that tenant was posted as Parivartan Adhikari under Labour Commissioner and was getting handsome salary. 5. Prescribed Authority on the basis of document pertaining to house tax assessment held that landlord in his possession had two rooms and kitchen on the ground floor, three rooms and two store rooms on the first floor and two constructed and two semi constructed room on second floor. 5. Prescribed Authority on the basis of document pertaining to house tax assessment held that landlord in his possession had two rooms and kitchen on the ground floor, three rooms and two store rooms on the first floor and two constructed and two semi constructed room on second floor. The Prescribed authority concluded that as the landlord was having seven constructed and two semi constructed rooms in his possession, hence his need was not bona fide. Commission was also issued by the prescribed authority to inspect the accommodation in possession of landlord and submit his report. According to the Commissioner’s report on the ground floor there were four rooms out of which in two rooms daughter of son-in-law of the landlord alongwith their children were residing and apart from it one store room, one kitchen room and a hall was stated to be in possession of the landlord. There were two more rooms on the ground floor which was stated to be in occupation of other tenant. On the first floor two rooms, kitchen, Varandha balakani and Pooja Ghar was also found in possession of the landlord and two rooms in possession of the tenant. On the second floor Commissioner found only two semi constructed rooms and no fully constructed room. Commissioner further reported that daughter of the tenant refused to permit him to inspect house No. 244, Shankaracharya Nagar. Ultimately prescribed authority concluded that on the ground floor landlord had two rooms, one store and on the ground floor three rooms and one store. If store is treated as room then total rooms in possession of the landlord were found to be seven by the prescribed authority. 6. Thereafter Prescribed Authority held that landlord actually required only 5 rooms. One for the landlord and his wife, one for his son, one for his daughter and son-in-law and one for two grand children of the landlord and one as drawing cum guest room. 7. It was also found by the Prescribed Authority that two rooms which were earlier in tenancy/occupation of Mohan Lal had also been released in favour of the landlord, hence he was having nine rooms fully constructed. 8. It appears that in respect of house at Shankaracharya Nagar some compromise decree had been passed in a suit between wife and daughter of the tenant. The Prescribed Authority held that the decree required registration. 8. It appears that in respect of house at Shankaracharya Nagar some compromise decree had been passed in a suit between wife and daughter of the tenant. The Prescribed Authority held that the decree required registration. The Prescribed Authority refused to consider the effect of the fact that tenant was having his own house on the ground that the proceedings were not under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act. 9. Appellate Court held that landlord could not be compelled to complete the construction of the unconstructed rooms. In that regard Appellate Court was fully justified. 10. The lower Appellate Court further held that the need of landlord depends upon his status. Lower Appellate Court further held that drawing room and guest room should be separate. It was further held that one room for tuition of grand children was required. 11. Landlord retired from Telegraph Department. 12. Lower Appellate Court further held that in view of Commissioner’s report it was clear that on the ground floor, some rooms were occupied by son-in-law and daughter of the landlord in which they were residing with their children and one room, one store and one kitchen was available to the landlord separately alongwith bathroom, latrine, kitchen, etc. The lower Appellate Court concluded that on the ground floor landlord had four rooms available to him and on the first floor two rooms total six rooms while requirement was of seven rooms. 13. The difference in counting the rooms available to the landlord in the judgments of lower Appellate Court and Prescribed Authority appears to be due to difference in approach of both the Courts towards store rooms. Prescribed Authority counted them as rooms while Appellate Court did not do so. Appellate Court also did not specifically reverse the finding of the Prescribed Authority that the possession of the two rooms which were in occupation of another tenant Mohan Lal, had been obtained by the landlord through release proceedings. Lower Appellate Court also held that son of the landlord was aged about 22 years at the time of decision of appeal and was likely to be married soon. As far as house at Shankaracharya Nagar is concerned admittedly the land over which the house was constructed was purchased in the name of wife of the tenant. Tenant’s version was that the said plot was gifted to the daughter. As far as house at Shankaracharya Nagar is concerned admittedly the land over which the house was constructed was purchased in the name of wife of the tenant. Tenant’s version was that the said plot was gifted to the daughter. After perusal of the entire evidence including records from Municipal Corporation/Nagar Nigam, lower Appellate Court held that the house belonged to the tenant. It is also observed that absolutely no document executed by the wife of the tenant in favour of their daughter transferring the said plot was filed. Lower Appellate Court also placed reliance upon some notice given by Nagar Nigam stating therein that in the house bearing No. 245, Shankaracharya Nagar, son of the tenant was residing and daughter of the tenant was residing in some other house. 14. From the findings of the Courts below and the pleadings of the parties two things are quite clear. Firstly, the landlord in his release application did not disclose the accommodation at his disposal on the ground floor. In the release application landlord stated that only two rooms were available to him while the finding of the lower Appellate Court is that six rooms are available to landlord. 15. The second thing which is also quite clear is that tenant has got his own house at Shankaracharya Nagar and in the accommodation in dispute tenant is running a coaching institute. 16. Bona fide need and comparative hardships are basically two distinct concepts. To a great extent they are independent of each other. However, to some extent they overlap. Present is the case of overlapping of bona fide need and comparative hardship. If tenant did not have his own house then need of the landlord could not be said to be so bona fide and grave as to warrant order of eviction. However, the fact that the tenant has got his own house and is not using the accommodation for residential purposes makes the mild need of the landlord strong enough to warrant passing of order of eviction. At this juncture some provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, and authorities of the Supreme Court require consideration. However, the fact that the tenant has got his own house and is not using the accommodation for residential purposes makes the mild need of the landlord strong enough to warrant passing of order of eviction. At this juncture some provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, and authorities of the Supreme Court require consideration. Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) of the Act is quoted below : "Explanation.—In the case of residential building— (i) Where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with him or is wholly dependent on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained." 17. The Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 2975 , Sudha Agrawal v. Xth Addl. Dist. Judge and others, while interpreting the above provision has held that if explanation is attracted then release application under Section 21 of the Act is at par with the release application under Section 16 of the Act where tenant cannot oppose or lead evidence in opposition to the release application filed by the landlord. 18. Under clauses (a) and (c) of Rule 16 (1) of the Rules framed under the Act it is provided as under : (a) Where the landlord already has adequate and reasonably suitable accommodation having regard to the number of members of his family and their respective ages and his means of social status his claim for additional requirement shall be construed strictly. (c) Where the tenant has apart from the building in tenancy other adequate accommodation whether owned by him or held as tenant of any public premises having regard to the number of members of his family and their respective ages land his social status, the landlords claim for additional requirements shall be construed liberally. 19. In the instant case both the above clauses being attracted, neutralise each other. 20. The Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 2896 , Siddalingamma v. M. Shenoy, has held that entire Rent Control Act is basically meant for the benefit of the tenant and provision of release on the ground of bona fide need is the only provision which treats the landlord with some sympathy. 20. The Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 2896 , Siddalingamma v. M. Shenoy, has held that entire Rent Control Act is basically meant for the benefit of the tenant and provision of release on the ground of bona fide need is the only provision which treats the landlord with some sympathy. In B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 it has been held that gravity of need and degree of necessity lies in the realm of comparative hardship. 21. Accordingly keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case firstly I do not find any such error in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction and secondly I am of the opinion that balance of justice lies in favour of upholding the order of eviction passed by the lower Appellate Court. Concept of substantial justice is one of the factors to be kept in mind by the Writ Court. Writ Court may refuse to interfere even with an illegal order if substantial justice has been done by the said order. The impugned order has resulted in substantial justice between the parties. 22. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that : (1) Within one month from today petitioner tenant files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. (2) For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 3,600/- (at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month) (as directed by the Supreme Court on 8.2.2008 through order passed in S.L.P. Civil No. 1585 of 2007) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3,600/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3,600/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3,600/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application under Section 23 of the Act. ————