JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri S.P. Pathak learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Lalit Mohan Joshi learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed against the order dated 29.5.1998 passed by III Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Lucknow/ Prescribed Authority, opposite party n.2 allowing the release application of the landlord and also against the order dated 9.5.2000 passed by VIth additional District Judge, Lucknow, opposite party no.1 passed in Rent Appeal No. 29 of 1998, Satnam Vs. Rejendra Prasad Chauhan dismissing the same. 3. Factual matrix of the present case are that Rejendra Prasad landlord, opposite party no.3 had filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 and the facts as submitted in P.A. Case no. 98 of 1996 which was registered before opposite party no.2 as stated in the release application are that by virtue of partition between the applicant and his brother Anjani Veer Prasad Chauhand in respect of house no. 34, situate at Dr. B.N. Verma Road, Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow. The applicant became absolute owner and landlord of a portion of above house marked with letters ABCD shown in the site plant annexed with the said pplication which is part and parcel of the pleadings . The portion fallen in the share of application is bounded as below:- East: Dr. B.N. Verma Raod. West : Seperate Gali North: House of Anjani Veer Chauhan South: Separate Gali 4. It was further submitted in the release application that the portion which is fallen in the share of opposite party no.2 ( landlord) , the petitioner is a tenant in a room on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The family of landlord consists of himself, Smt. Savitri(wife), Km. Anupama (daughter) and Master Rahul Chauhan (son). He is Printing Machine Mechanic as well as doing motor binding work , the said work are done by him in one of the room of aforesaid house. One room is used for residential purpose of his family members and one room is an dilapidated condition and is not for habitable. His children studying in B.A.-I and class IIIrd as such there is an acute shortage of accommodation so he required the room which is under the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant. One room is used for residential purpose of his family members and one room is an dilapidated condition and is not for habitable. His children studying in B.A.-I and class IIIrd as such there is an acute shortage of accommodation so he required the room which is under the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant. It was further submitted in the release application that tenant's family consist of himself , wife and four children, who had acquired a residential house at Argunganj, Lucknow and can very well shift over there. 5. The petitioner-tenant thereafter had filed written statement in which it has been pleaded that the respondent no.3 is the owner/landlord of the house in which he is a tenant, it was also admitted that landlord is an electrician and doing business of motor binding etc. in one room, further the family members of the landlord is also admitted. However in the written statement , it was denied that the landlord was in need of premises under his tenancy as the landlord has got sufficient accommodation to live in the premises in question . Beside the same it was also pleaded that the land lord had suppressed the fact that one big room of the residential house had been let out to Shanti Pharma for business purpose so the application for release was liable to be rejected. 6. After exchange of pleadings and on the basis documentary evidence on record, the Prescribed authority by order dated 29.5.1998 had allowed the release application . While allowing the release application, the Prescribed authority had given the categorical findings of fact that need of landlord is genuine and bona fide as the family of the landlord consisted of himself, Smt. Savitri (wife), Km. Anupama (daughter) and Master Rahul Chauhan (son) which fact was admitted by the petitioner in his written statement. Further it was observed by the Prescribed authority that it is totally incorrect on the part of the tenant to stated that one room is in a dilapidated condition and is in possession of the landlord. In view of the said fact, the comparative hardship between the applicant and the tenant was considered by the prescribed authority and that the need of the landlord more genuine and bona fide. In view of the said fact, the comparative hardship between the applicant and the tenant was considered by the prescribed authority and that the need of the landlord more genuine and bona fide. The prescribed authority also taken into account the case laws to the effect and after placing reliance on them that if the tenant had not made any effort during the pendency of the release application to find out an alternative accommodation and passed the order dated 29.5.1998 the release application should be allowed. 7. The order dated 29.5.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority was challenged by the petitioner-tenant before the appellate authority by way of appeal ( Rent Appeal No. 29 of 1998) and opposite party no.1 had dismissed the same by order dated 9.5.2000. The appellate authority while dismissing the appeal had considered the comparative hardship between the parties and had given findings to the effect that it is now well established rule of law that merely because the tenant will suffers hardship if the release application is allowed cannot be a ground to refuse the accommodation from releasing, once the court found that need of the landlord is genuine . Further a finding of facts is also given that there was nothing on record from the side of the tenant that after filing the release application he made any effort to search out the alternative accommodation. This factum goes against the tenant and accordingly on the said basis the appeal was dismissed. 8. Sri S.P. Pathak learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the orders passed by the appellate authority and by the prescribed authority has submitted that both the authorities have failed to consider the facts that the need as set up by the landlord in his release application was flimsy and artificial and on fake ground by showing the use of one room for business, falsely alleging that one room is in dilapidated and unusable condition and not disclosing that on the big room facing Dr. B.N. Verma Raod Luckow , has been given by him to M/s Shanti Pharma for business purpose without any allotment order thus infringing the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. B.N. Verma Raod Luckow , has been given by him to M/s Shanti Pharma for business purpose without any allotment order thus infringing the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. It has further submitted that in view of the facts of the instant case, the need of the petitioner-tenant in comparison to the landlord-respondent is genuine and bona fide thus the findings given by the two courts below that the need of the landlord is more genuine in comparison to the petitioner are perverse in nature. Thus, the order passed by the court below are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 9. Sri Lalit Mohan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the orders which are under challenged in the present writ petition, has submitted that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case , the prescribed authority had allowed the release application of the landlord thereafter the appellate authority by order dated 9.5.2000 passed in Rent Appeal no. 29 of 1998 had dismissed the same. He further submits that the court below after considering the hardship between the parties had given a categorical findings of fact that the need of the landlord is more pressing then that of tenant and as it is a well established rule of law that merely because a tenant will suffer a hardship the application of release cannot be rejected once the courts' findings that the need of landlord is genuine and pressing. Moreover, there is nothing on record from the side of the tenant/petitioner that after filing the release application he made made any genuine efforts to search the alternative accommodation. This factor goes against the tenant . Accordingly, the order in question in the present writ petition are perfectly valid and needs to interfere and in support of his arguments he relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Kamil Khan Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bareilly, 1982 ARC 783. 2. Smt. Tara Devi Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others ,1995 ARC 273. 3. Badri Narain Chunni Lal Bhutada Vs. Govind Ram 2005 (2) ARC 899. 4. Abdul Naim Quraishi Vs. Masiuddin Khan, 2005(1) ARC,316. 5. Alimuddin Vs. XIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut and others , 2005 (2) ARC 76 . 6. Javed Jameel Vs. District Judge Lucknow and others 2006(3) ARC 542. 7. Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal Vs. 3. Badri Narain Chunni Lal Bhutada Vs. Govind Ram 2005 (2) ARC 899. 4. Abdul Naim Quraishi Vs. Masiuddin Khan, 2005(1) ARC,316. 5. Alimuddin Vs. XIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut and others , 2005 (2) ARC 76 . 6. Javed Jameel Vs. District Judge Lucknow and others 2006(3) ARC 542. 7. Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal Vs. VIIth Additional District Judge, Jhansi and others ,2002 ALJ 2771. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is well settled proposition of law that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over the concurrent findings of facts arrived by the prescribed authority and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Sita Ram (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases , 478 has held that:- " The position is too well settled to admit of any controversy that the 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 penalty 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." 12. The said view was further reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases. 13. In the present case , concurrent findings of fact in respect to genuine and bone fide need of the landlord which had been recorded by the prescribed authority while allowing the release application and the same was affirmed by the appellate authority accordingly while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the said concurrent findings of facts which are not perverse in nature cannot be set aside in the present case. 14. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Mst. 14. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Mst. Bega Begum and others V. Abdul Ahad Khand (Dead) by L.R. And others, (1979) SCC 273 has held that it is not doubt true that the tenant will have to be ousted from the house if a decree of eviction is passed but such an event would happen eventually whenever a decree for eviction is passed and merely because the tenant will be ousted from the premises where he was running his activity cannot be itself be considered to be a hardship and be availed ground for refusing the landlord a decree for eviction. 15. Further , in the instant case both the courts below had given categorical finding of fact that the tenant did not make any effort to search an alternative accommodation immediately after filing of the release application and even during the pendency of appeal so the said facts were sufficient to tilt the balance of the comparative hardship against the tenant in the present case in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Bhutada V. G.R. Mundada, A.I.R. 2003 SC 2713 wherein it was held that bona fide requirement implies an element of necessity. The necessity is a necessity without regard to the degree to which it may be. For the purpose of comparing the hardship the degree of urgency or intensity of felt need assumed significance. 16. In the above authority it has also been held in para 13, that tenant must show as to what efforts he made to purchase or take on rent other accommodation after filing of the release application which is quoted below:- " In Piper V. Harvey, 1958(1) All ER 454, the issue as to comparative hardship arose for the consideration of Court of appeals under the Rent Act, 1975. Lord Denning opined; "when I look at all the evidence in his case and see the strong case of hardship which the landlord put forward, and when I see that the tenant did not give any evidence of any attempts made by him to find other accommodation, to look for another house, either to but or to rent, it seems to me that there is only one reasonable conclusion to be arrived at, and that is that the tenant did not prove ( and the burden is on him to prove) the case of greater hardship." Hudson, L.J. ,opined: " the tenant has not been able to say any thing more than the minimum which every tenant can say, namely, that he was in fact been in occupation of the bungalow, and that he has not at the moment any other place to go to . He has not , however, sought to prove any thing additional to that by way of hardship such as unsuccessful attempts to find other accommodation, or , indeed , to raise the question of his relative financial incompetence as compared with the landlord." On such state of the case, the Court answered the issue as to comparative hardship against the tenant and ordered his eviction." 17. Further this Court in the case of Salim Khan V. Ivth Additional District Judge, Jhanshi and others , 2006(1) ARC 588 has held as under:- " in respect of comparative hardship , tenant did not show what efforts they made to search alternative accommodation after filing of release application . This case sufficient to tilt the balance of hardship against them Vide Bhutada V. G.R. Mundada 2003 Supreme Court 2713; 2005(2) ARC 899. Moreover, rent of Rs. 6/- per month which the tenants are paying is virtually as well as actually no rent. By paying such insignificant rent they must have saved a lot of money. Money saved is money earned. They must , therefore, be in a position to take another house on good rent. Further, they did not file any allotment application for allotment of another house. Under Rule 10(3) of the Rules framed under the Act, a tenant, against whom release application has been filed, is entitled to apply for allotment of another house immediately. Naturally such person is to be given preference in the matter of allotment. Further, they did not file any allotment application for allotment of another house. Under Rule 10(3) of the Rules framed under the Act, a tenant, against whom release application has been filed, is entitled to apply for allotment of another house immediately. Naturally such person is to be given preference in the matter of allotment. Respondents did not file any such allotment application. Thus, the question of comparative hardship has also to be decided against the tenants." The said view has been further reiterated by this Court in the following cases:- (1) Jai Raj Agarwal Vs. Bhola Nath kapoor and others , 2005(3) ARC 417. (2) Rulemuddin and others Vs. Abdul Nadeem ,2007(2) ARC 62. (3) Mohabbey Ali Vs Taj Bahadur and other, 2009 (2) ARC 715. (4) Raj Kumar Vs. Lal Khan, 2009 (2) ARC 740 (5) Ashis Sonar and other Vs. Prescribed Authority and others 2009 (3) ARC 269 . 18. For the foregoing reasons ,I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below which are under challenged in the present case. Accordingly, the present writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. 19. No order as to costs.