JUDGMENT Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari may be issued quashing the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 2007 - Smt. Radha Rani Mehrotra & Others Vs. Kailash Nath Mahendru as well as impugned judgment dated 12.11.2007 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow in P.A. Case No. 39 of 1994 - Kailash Nath Mahendru Vs. Smt. Radha Rani Mehrotra and others, contained as Annexures Nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to this petition, are that the applicant Kailash Nath Mahendru moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with the prayer that the premises in question may be released in favour of the applicant after evicting the opposite parties on the ground that he is the owner/landlord of house no. 324/56, Katari Tola, Chowk, Lucknow. Late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra, the father of opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 and the husband of opposite party no.1 was the tenant of a portion in the said premises on the ground floor comprising of two rooms, three KOTHARIES and one varandah with common amenities of latrine and bath-room on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra died, leaving behind the opposite parties as heirs and legal representatives, who inherited the tenancy rights jointly. One of the sisters of the applicant, neglected by her husband, is residing with him along with her two school going sons. The applicant's mother is aged about 80 years and a servant has been engaged to look after her. The applicant has four sisters and other relatives. They often visit his house and live with him. He has only two rooms on the ground floor with common amenities. The first floor of the house has fallen down. He has to accommodate self, wife, mother, Indu Bala Kapoor (sister), Sonu & Monu (sons of Indu Bala Kapoor) and servant in the said two rooms. They often visit his house and live with him. He has only two rooms on the ground floor with common amenities. The first floor of the house has fallen down. He has to accommodate self, wife, mother, Indu Bala Kapoor (sister), Sonu & Monu (sons of Indu Bala Kapoor) and servant in the said two rooms. The opposite parties are in possession of their own accommodation in Rajajipuram Colony since 1980, but, they are not vacating the premises in question just to harass the applicant and to pressurize him to fulfill the unjustified demand of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite parties can shift in their two houses at Rajajipuram, Lucknow and they would not face any hardship, if they are ordered to vacate the said premises. The accommodation in question is required for the use of the applicant and his family members. 3. The opposite parties nos.2 & 3, namely, Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra and Sri Sunil Kumar Mehrotra have filed their written statement on 10.07.2002 and have admitted that their father late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra was the tenant in accommodation in question and its monthly rent was Rs. 25/- initially, but, has denied the other allegations. Their version is that the applicant's mother has expired 5/6 years back and there is no servant in the house of the applicant. Their father was the tenant in the ground floor of house no. 324/56, Katra Tola, Chowk, Lucknow on monthly rent of Rs. 25/- for the last about 40-45 years, which comprises two rooms, three KOTHARIES, one varandah and common latrine and bath room. The house being old, one room, three KOTHARIES and the roof of boundary fell down. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 80/- P.M., but, no repairing was got done in the tenanted accommodation by the applicant. The opposite parties have one room at present to meet out their residential needs. They have constructed latrine and bath room on the vacant land lying in front of the house. The said house belongs to trust and the applicant is not the owner of the said house. He can only look after the said house. Thus, the opposite parties are not the tenants of the applicant and they are the tenants of the trust. The married sisters of the applicant are residing at their in-laws house happily. The said house belongs to trust and the applicant is not the owner of the said house. He can only look after the said house. Thus, the opposite parties are not the tenants of the applicant and they are the tenants of the trust. The married sisters of the applicant are residing at their in-laws house happily. Three rooms, roof of second floor, latrine and bath room in the first floor and a BAITHAK, a big room, a KOTHARI, latrine and bath-room in the ground floor are in possession of the applicant. The kitchen and open land are also in his possession. The married sisters and the servant do not come within the purview of family as provided in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thus, the applicants family consists of self and his wife Smt. Pushpa Mahendru. Km. Sunita, aged about 30 years, the unmarried daughter of the opposite party no.1 is also residing with the opposite parties. The one room and kitchen are insufficient to meet out the residential needs of the opposite parties. Whereas, the applicant has more accommodation in his possession than required. The P.A. Case No. 39 of 1984, filed by the applicant earlier, was dismissed on 12.02.1995 by IV Additional Civil Judge. The applicant is not in need of the accommodation in question. There is no house in possession of the opposite parties at Rajajipuram Colony, Lucknow. No other house is available at Lucknow to meet out the residential needs of the opposite parties. The need of the opposite parties for the accommodation in question is greater than the need of the applicant. 4. After considering the evidence produced by both the parties and hearing the learned counsel, the learned Prescribed Authority has held that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the opposite parties and the need of the applicant for the accommodation in question is genuine and bona-fide and the applicant would suffer greater hardship than the opposite parties, in case, the application for release of the accommodation in question is rejected. On the basis of the said findings, the learned Prescribed Authority has allowed the applicant's application for release of the accommodation in question vide judgment and order dated 12.11.2007. 5. On the basis of the said findings, the learned Prescribed Authority has allowed the applicant's application for release of the accommodation in question vide judgment and order dated 12.11.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 12.11.2007, the opposite parties preferred Rent Appeal No. 58 of 2007 in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow, which was dismissed with costs and the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority were confirmed vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 05.04.2008, the petitioners/tenants have filed this writ petition. 6. The counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. 7. I have heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and perused the record. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an application was moved on their behalf under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for issue of Commission for determining the accommodation in use of the applicant as well as the opposite parties, but, no order was passed on the said application and it was kept pending and thus, the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court have committed jurisdictional error; that allotment of the house in favour of late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra was cancelled due to non payment of instalments and no other house is available to the petitioners at Lucknow to fulfill their residential needs; that the learned appellate Court has not considered the comparative hardship of the petitioners at the time of disposal of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court have committed illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the landlord's application for release of accommodation in question and hence, the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court have committed illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the landlord's application for release of accommodation in question and hence, the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has submitted that the application for issue of Commission was moved by the petitioners at the stage of arguments with malafide intention in order to delay the disposal of the case; that the alternative accommodation is available to the petitioners and hence, they have no right to contest in view of the Explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; that the finding of facts recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the appellate Court are based on evidence available on record and there is no perversity in the impugned judgments; that the petitioners are not entitled to dictate the terms and manner in which the landlord should fulfill his residential needs. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has further submitted that the application for release has been allowed rightly and there is no illegality in the impugned judgments and hence, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) [2001 (19) LCD 330] - M/S Bata India Ltd., Calcutta Vs. 3rd Addl. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others; (2) [2005 (U.P.) RCC 388] - Alimuddin Vs. XIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut and others; (3) [2006 (24) LCD 1298] - Dr. V. K. Srivastava Vs. Srimati Vandana Pitaria and others. 10. The application for release of accommodation in question was moved in the year 1994. The opposite parties nos. 2 & 3 have filed the written statement in the year 2002. An application for issue of Commission (Annexure No.8) was moved on behalf of the opposite parties in the year 2007, i.e. at the stage of arguments. The applicant/landlord filed the objection (Annexure No.9) against the said application alleging that the affidavits of the parties with regard to family members and the accommodation are available on the record and the said application has been moved to delay the disposal of the case. The applicant/landlord filed the objection (Annexure No.9) against the said application alleging that the affidavits of the parties with regard to family members and the accommodation are available on the record and the said application has been moved to delay the disposal of the case. After considering the record and hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Prescribed Authority passed order on 14.08.2007 on the said application (Annexure No.10) to the effect that the said application may be placed on record and it may be considered after conclusion of arguments of the parties, if the Court is of the view that without issue of Commission, the disposal of the said matter is not possible. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 14.08.2007, Civil Revision No. 289 of 2007 was preferred on behalf of the opposite parties/tenants in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow, which was dismissed at the stage of admission vide order dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure No.11). It appears that since sufficient evidence/material was available on record for disposal of the application for release of the accommodation in question, the learned Prescribed Authority did not think it necessary to issue Commission for determination of accommodation in occupation of the concerned parties, in the light of the said order. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Prescribed Authority has committed any jurisdictional error by not issuing the Commission for the said purpose. 12. An application on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties (Annexure No.14) was moved in the Rent Appeal No. 58 of 2007 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow for taking the Commissioner's report on record, in respect of the disputed accommodation submitted in S.C.C. Suit No. 668 of 1985 - Kailash Nath Mahendru Vs. Smt. Radha Rani and others. The applicant filed objection against the said application. After considering the record, the learned appellate Court passed an order on 11.03.2008 on the said application to the effect that if at the time of final disposal, the Commissioner's report is required, it shall be read in evidence and the appropriate order would be passed (Annexure No.15). The applicant filed objection against the said application. After considering the record, the learned appellate Court passed an order on 11.03.2008 on the said application to the effect that if at the time of final disposal, the Commissioner's report is required, it shall be read in evidence and the appropriate order would be passed (Annexure No.15). It appears that the learned appellate Court did not require the said Commissioner's report for final disposal of the appeal and hence, no appropriate order was passed on the said application and no reliance was placed on it, at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error was committed by the learned appellate Court by not passing an appropriate order on the said application at the time of final disposal of the appeal. 13. In para-6 of the rejoinder affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioners, it has been admitted that the House No. F-3115 was allotted in favour of late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra, but, subsequently, the said allotment was cancelled vide order dated 28.10.1986 (Annexure No. RA-3). The Annexure No. RA-3 indicates that the House No. F-3115 was allotted by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow in favour of late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra in the year 1980, but, due to non payment of full amount and non fulfilling of formalities, the said allotment was cancelled in the year 1986. It shows that the said house was allotted in favour of late Sri Gopal Narain Mehrotra, the husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of petitioners nos. 2 to 6, but due to their negligence, the said allotment was cancelled. The petitioners have also admitted in para-6 of the rejoinder affidavit that the house no. F-3117 was allotted in favour of the petitioner no.2, Anil Kumar Mehrotra, but, the same is under unauthorized occupation of some goonda element, namely, Sri Saba-ud-Din, although, it is the responsibility of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad to deliver vacant possession to him. The petitioners are neither in possession of the said house, nor any sale deed has been executed in their favour. The allegations made by the petitioners in this regard are vague. The House No. F-3117 was allotted in favour of the petitioner no. The petitioners are neither in possession of the said house, nor any sale deed has been executed in their favour. The allegations made by the petitioners in this regard are vague. The House No. F-3117 was allotted in favour of the petitioner no. 2 by UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, but, no reliable evidence has been produced by the petitioners to indicate that it is in unauthorized occupation of some other person and even if it is so, what steps the petitioners have taken to obtain vacant possession of the said house. It appears that the petitioners have not taken any steps to get vacant possession of the said house, if in fact it is in unauthorized occupation of some other person. Under these circumstances, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 that in order to avoid the applicability of Explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the petitioners have made false statement that some unathorized person is in occupation of the said house. 14. The learned appellate court has considered the controversy involved between the parties in the light of findings recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the evidence available on the record. After considering the pros and cons of the matter, the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and has confirmed the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority. Under these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the learned appellate Court has not considered the comparative needs of the parties for the accommodation in question. 15. It has been admitted by the petitioners that the petitioner no. 4 Sri Santosh Kumar Mehrotra, after his marriage has obtained another rented accommodation and he is residing there along with his family members. The litigation is going on since the year 1994. There was ample opportunity for the other petitioners to search out alternative accommodation to meet out their residential needs, but, it appears that they have not made any efforts to search out alternative accommodation for the reasons best known to them. The petitioners/tenants are not entitled to dictate terms to the land lord as to in what manner he should fulfill his residential needs. 16. The petitioners/tenants are not entitled to dictate terms to the land lord as to in what manner he should fulfill his residential needs. 16. In the case of M/S Bata India Ltd., Calcutta (supra) it has been held by this Court that the findings of bona fide and genuine need and comparative hardship are the findings of facts, which cannot be canvassed or challenged in writ jurisdiction. 17. In the case reported in (2001) 4 SCC 478 , Ashok Kumar and others versus Sita Ram, the Hon. Supreme Court has held that a finding of fact recorded by the final court of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the Court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. The High Court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record. The Court should bear in mind that it is not acting as yet another appellate Court in the matter. 18. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgments of the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on evidence available on record. The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or error of law or perversity in the judgments and orders impugned in this petition. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court as well as by this Court, no interference is called for in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below, which are based on correct appreciation of material on record by invoking writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and orders dated 12.11.2007 and 05.04.2008. This writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.