JUDGMENT SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.-This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 18.12. 2006 passed by District Judge, Hardoi whereby an appeal under section 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short' Act') filed by the respondent No.2 (in short 'landlord-respondent) has been allowed after setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.3.2005 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi in P.A. Case No.6 of 2000. 2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: (i) The respondent-landlord is the owner and landlord of the disputed house No. 172/1, Mohalla Nai-Basti, District Hardoi wherein the petitioner Smt. Tara Devi is occupying the disputed accommodation as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. An application under section 21 of the Act was filed on the allegation that landlord-respondent was earlier employed in ' a private biscuit factory in Kanpur and was residing there in a tenanted accommodation comprising of one small room, latrine and bathroom. After the closure of factory he shifted to Hardoi. It was further alleged hat he has a bona fide need of the disputed accommodation for his personal use and occupation, His family consists of self, wife and one son, who is of marriageable age, but his marriage is being postponed on account of non-availability of a suitable accommodation in Hardoi. He further stated that in his ancestral house, he has got only one room in his possession which is in a very dilapidated condition and not at all suitable for residential purpose. The opposite party lives in Village Sikandarpur, which is about 20 Km. away from Hardoi and her two sons are already in possession of the two different accommodations as tenant, one in Gupta Colony and other in Preetam Nagar. (ii) The petitioner-tenant contested the release application alleging that the respondent-landlord is living in Kanpur alongwith his family and does not want to shift to Hardoi and his alleged need is not bona fide and genuine. It is further pleaded by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord respondent has four houses in Hardoi, out of which one is in his possession and the remaining are on rent. It is further pleaded that the disputed accommodation consists of one room, front verandah and half portion of the courtyard. The petitioner-tenant has no house in the Hardoi city. It is further pleaded by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord respondent has four houses in Hardoi, out of which one is in his possession and the remaining are on rent. It is further pleaded that the disputed accommodation consists of one room, front verandah and half portion of the courtyard. The petitioner-tenant has no house in the Hardoi city. She belongs to a labour class and has no means to obtain other house and as such she will suffer greater hardship, if the disputed accommodation is released in favour of the landlord. 3. The number of affidavits were exchanged between the parties and the landlord also filed a number of documents in support of his case. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application filed under section 21 by the landlord holding that the need of the landlord is neither genuine nor bona fide and further held that the landlord has several accommodations in his possession and the petitioner-tenant will suffer greater hardship in case if she is evicted. 4. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court landlord filed an appeal under section 22 and the same was allowed by judgment and order dated 18.12.2006 holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine and also the hardship in favour of the landlord. 5. During the pendency of appeal the landlord filed the following affidavits and documents: 1. Affidavit of one Nirmala Awasthi and Israr Hussain stating that the factory Priya Food Products, Kanpur where he was earlier employed was closed in February, 2005 and his service in the said factory was dispensed with. The certificate dated 10.3.2005 issued by Priya Food Products, Kanpur was filed to show that the appellant left the job on 28.2.2005. The certificate issued by the owner of the House No. 168/22, Barra 6, Kanpur reveals that his house was vacated by the respondent-landlord in February, 2005. The affidavit of Smt. Nirmala Awasthi stated that landlord-respondent took her house on monthly rent of Rs. 400/- in Mohalla Ram Nagriya, Luxmi Purwa, Hardoi. The rent receipts were also annexed to prove that he is living in the said house after shifting from Kanpur. The landlord also filed an affidavit stating that he is employed in Gupta Trader, Hardoi. 2. 400/- in Mohalla Ram Nagriya, Luxmi Purwa, Hardoi. The rent receipts were also annexed to prove that he is living in the said house after shifting from Kanpur. The landlord also filed an affidavit stating that he is employed in Gupta Trader, Hardoi. 2. The report of Civil Engineer Israel Husain alongwith his affidavit and photograph was also filed to show that the ancestral house of the landlord-respondent is about 50 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and not fit for residential purpose. 6. The petitioner Smt. Tara Devi on the other hand before the Appellate Court filed an affidavit of her son Sunil Kumar to controvert the aforesaid additional evidence filed by the landlord. 7. The Appellate Court after considering the entire material on record held the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine and found the comparative hardship in favour of the landlord and consequently set-aside the order dated 29.3.2005 passed by the prescribed authority. Hence, the present writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Appellate Court has set-aside the order of the Trial Court by relying wholly upon the additional evidences filed by the landlord before the Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the Appellate Court without meeting the reasonings of the Trial Court has set-aside the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. It is further submitted that the room in the ownership and possession of the landlord in his ancestral house situated in Mohalla Nai-Basti, Guru Dwara Galli, Hardoi is sufficient and suitable to cater his needs and the need of the landlord is neither bona fide nor genuine. In case the petitioner is evicted she will suffer greater hardship and she has got no other accommodation except the disputed house. 9. It was further submitted that the petitioner-tenant was not given any proper opportunity to rebut the additional evidences filed by the landlord before the Appellate Court. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord has supported the order passed by the Appellate Court and has contended that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner-tenant to rebut the additional evidences and the petitioner-tenant did file the affidavit of her son Sunil Kumar in the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord has supported the order passed by the Appellate Court and has contended that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner-tenant to rebut the additional evidences and the petitioner-tenant did file the affidavit of her son Sunil Kumar in the appeal. It was further submitted that the factory wherein the landlord was employed in Kanpur was closed as such he shifted to Hardoi and got a rented accommodation @ Rs. 400/- per month, whereas, on the other hand the petitioner-tenant was occupying the disputed premises of the landlord-respondent on meagre rent of Rs. 100/- per month. It was further submitted that his son' who is about 26 years old and is unable to get married due to the paucity of accommodation and is forced to live in a rented accommodation. It was further submitted that the ancestral house was not at all habitable and is in a dilapidated condition which was already proved by the certificate issued by the Civil Engineer Israr Husain. It was further submitted that the other two kotharies in the ownership of the landlord are on rent and are being used for commercial purposes by the respective tenants, therefore, the other accommodations as alleged by the tenant can not be taken into consideration for assessing the bona fide need of the landlord. 11. Heard Sri N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Anurag Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord and perused the record. 12. It is not disputed that the landlord was earlier employed in a private biscuit factory in Kanpur and there he was occupying a rented accommodation alongwith his family. It is also not disputed that the landlord's family consists of himself, wife and a son, who is of marriageable age. 13. The record of the case shows that the landlord shifted to Hardoi in 2005 and got employment in Gupta Traders, Hardoi in July, 2005 and is drawing Rs. 2700/- per month as salary. The affidavit was also filed stating that the landlord alongwith his family is living in a rented accommodation @ Rs. 400/per month in Mohalla Ram Nagriya, Luxmi Purwa, Hardoi. In support of the aforesaid contention the affidavit of landlord/ owner of the said house as well as the certificate issued by the proprietor of Gupta Traders, Hardoi was filed. The affidavit was also filed stating that the landlord alongwith his family is living in a rented accommodation @ Rs. 400/per month in Mohalla Ram Nagriya, Luxmi Purwa, Hardoi. In support of the aforesaid contention the affidavit of landlord/ owner of the said house as well as the certificate issued by the proprietor of Gupta Traders, Hardoi was filed. Petitioner also filed the certificate and affidavits of the concerned persons to confirm the fact that the landlord shifted from Kanpur to Hardoi and was occupying the rented accommodation. Moresoever, the certificate of the Civil Engineer was also filed to show that a room in the ancestral house of the landlord was in a very dilapidated condition and was not habitable. It was also stated in affidavit by the landlord that two kotharies as alleged were already on rent for commercial purposes and could not be used by the landlord for his residential purpose. 14. The Appellate Court on the basis of pleadings, affidavits and documentary evidence held as follows : 1. One room in the ancestral house situated in Nai-Basti, Gurudwara Gali, Hardoi is in a very dilapidated condition and can not be used for residential purpose and placed reliance upon the report of Civil Engineer, which is supported by his affidavit, aJ:1d the same was not rebutted by the petitioner. 2. The two kotharies in the ownership of landlord in Mohalla Civil Lines, Hardoi are in the tenancy of Mahmood and Ramjani, in which they are carrying on their business, as such it is neither available nor suitable to the landlord for residential purpose. The landlord lost his employment at Kanpur on account of the closure of the factory and shifted to Hardoi and is residing in a rented accommodation. The said fact is corroborated by affidavits and certificates issued by the concerned persons. 3. The son of the petitioner is of marriageable age and he requires sufficient accommodation for himself and his family, and apart from the disputed accommodation he has no other suitable accommodation. 4. The comparative hardship leans in favour of the landlord-respondent. 15. The petitioner can not be denied to occupy his own house and compelled to pay Rs. 400/- per month as rent whereas the tenant is occupying the dispute~ premises only @ Rs. 100/- per month. 4. The comparative hardship leans in favour of the landlord-respondent. 15. The petitioner can not be denied to occupy his own house and compelled to pay Rs. 400/- per month as rent whereas the tenant is occupying the dispute~ premises only @ Rs. 100/- per month. The ancestral house has been built up on a very small piece of land measuring only 360 sq. ft. The said house comprises of one room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. The landlord-respondent has only one room in his possession and that too is in a very dilapidated condition and is not fit for residential purpose. The Civil Engineer's report proves that the walls of the said room are made from bricks with mud mortar etc. According to the Civil Engineer the walls are cracked and the slab have cracks at many places. The Civil Engineer opined that there is likelihood of collapsing of said building due to vibration or heavy rains and the Civil Engineer's report finds corroboration from the photographs of the room the petitioner-tenant did not file any contrary report of the Engineer or photographs of the said house to rebut the report of the Civil Engineer. 16. In view of the aforesaid reasons the Appellate Court was justified to set-aside the judgment and order dated 29.3.2005 passed by the Trial Court and upheld the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine. As far as comparative hardship is concerned the Appellate Court has observed that the owner landlord of the building can not be compelled to continue to live in the tenanted accommodation which is not sufficient and suitable. Whenever the eviction decree is passed against a tenant, he is bound to come on street, but this much cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the tenant will suffer greater hardship. The release petition was filed in the year 2000 and the respondent has not made any attempt to search any other suitable accommodation on rent during the said period. 17. Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Sarju Prasad v. 8th Additional District Judge, Faizabad and others 1 2006 (65) ALR 724, wherein it has been held that the landlord is the best judge to assess his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in this matter. 17. Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Sarju Prasad v. 8th Additional District Judge, Faizabad and others 1 2006 (65) ALR 724, wherein it has been held that the landlord is the best judge to assess his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in this matter. Neither the tenant, nor the Court can suggest the landlord other means to satisfy his need so that the tenant may continue in possession unless those means are equally viable. It is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how the landlord could have adjusted himself. 18. Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent has further placed reliance on Javed Jameel v. District Judge, Lucknow and others, 2 2006 (64) ALR 423. wherein it has been held that it is sufficient to till the balance against the tenant while considering the comparative hardship if a genuine effort is not made by the/tenant to find the alternative accommodation. 19. The record of the case clearly shows that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to rebut the additional evidences filed by the landlord before the Appellate Court and moresoever the petitioner has not pleaded in the writ petition that he was not afforded any opportunity to rebut the additional evidences filed by the landlord before the Appellate Court. The petitioner-tenant did file the affidavits to controvert the additional evidences but it did not find favour with the Appellate Court. The bare perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Court clearly reveals that the Appellate Court considered each and every aspect of the matter and on the basis of the entire material available on record, recorded the findings of fact in favour of the landlord after meeting the reasonings of the prescribed authority. The Appellate Court has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons in deciding the appeal in favour of landlord and this Court can not substitute its opinion to the opinion of the Courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the Lower Courts are erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable on its settled principles on the basis of pronouncement made by Apex Court or was based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at a finding without evidence. 20. 20. The Appellate Court has on meticulous evaluation of evidence found the requirement of the landlord to be proved after holding that the landlord has got no suitable alternative accommodation to satisfy his required need. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court are neither perverse nor based on extraneous or irrelevant material. The Appellate Court also on careful comparison and assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the landlord and tenant, found the comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. 21. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition; it is accordingly dismissed. 22. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted three months time from today to vacate the premises provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of one month from today to vacate the disputed premises and hand over the same to the landlord-respondent No.2 within a period of three months from today, it is further provided that the tenant according to the respondent No.2 has not paid any rent since 1997, therefore, the tenant will also deposit the said arrears of the rent alongwith the rent upto delivery of the possession as mentioned herein above within one month from today. In the event of default in any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord-respondent No.2 will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ Petition Dismissed.