Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— 1. Heard Sri D.P. Tripathi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri K.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rama Goel, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.8.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar allowing respondent-landlord's Rent Appeal No.14 of 2007 setting aside Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar's judgment and order dated 24.3.2007 in Rent Case No.02 of 2003, allowing application of respondent-landlord in respect to the premises in question under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and releasing the said accommodation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court had clearly recorded a finding that landlord failed to prove that premises for which he had filed application for release was the same which was occupied by the petitioner-tenant but this finding has been reversed illegally by the Appellate Court. He further contended that there are several other tenants but no effort has been made by the landlord to evict them from the premises in question, and only the petitioner has been singled out which shows that application of landlord lacked bona fide and this was noticed and appreciated by the Prescribed Authority but the Appellate Court had illegally ignored and omitted the said finding. 4. However, I find no force in the submission. 5. the basic contention relates to identity of premises. The petitioner-tenant's claim is that premises in which he is residing has municipal number 120/667-A(1) Narainpurwa, Kanpur while the application for release has been filed by the landlord in respect to municipal number 120/784, Narainpurwa, Kanpur Nagar and both these premises are different. The petitioner-tenant is not occupying the accommodation owned by respondent-landlord mentioned in his application and therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. The application is totally misconceived. 6. However, from the record, this Court finds that there was a specific case of respondent-landlord that a forged entry in respect to municipal no.120/667/A(1) Narainpurwa, Kanpur was made in the municipal record though no such accommodation exists. The application is totally misconceived. 6. However, from the record, this Court finds that there was a specific case of respondent-landlord that a forged entry in respect to municipal no.120/667/A(1) Narainpurwa, Kanpur was made in the municipal record though no such accommodation exists. When this forgery was pointed out and brought to the notice of Nagar Nigam Kanpur, vide resolution no.96 dated 26.4.1995, the said entry was recalled and the name of the petitioner's wife Smt. Chavna, Daughter of Manohar was directed to be scored out from municipal record as occupant/owner of premises no.120/667 A(1), since there was no such numbered accommodation. Thereafter in respect to the premises in question, which was actually numbered as 120/768, the respondent was shown as owner and petitioner Jairam Yadav was shown as tenant. Against the aforesaid resolution, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal no.237/7/95, which was dismissed for want of prosecution whereafter the petitioner filed restoration application which was also rejected and it is said that now restoration of restoration application has been filed after a long time which is pending. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the alleged municipal number which is made the basis by the petitioner-tenant in support of his contention that he reside in different accommodation, does not exist in the eyes of law, having been removed or scored out by Nagar Nigam, Kanpur as long back as on 20th April, 1995 and the said order is still operating. The Appellate Court has also found that relevant documents were already on record but the Prescribed Authority ignored the same and recorded a perverse finding to the effect that no document was filed by the landlord-respondent to show that municipal entry was ever recalled though these documents were already on record. Those documents have also been placed before are at page 98-101 of the paper book of the writ petition, which shows that the document was part of record. Therefore, findings of Prescribed Authority otherwise in its order dated 24.3.2007 is clearly perverse and has rightly been set aside by the Appellate court. 8. Those documents have also been placed before are at page 98-101 of the paper book of the writ petition, which shows that the document was part of record. Therefore, findings of Prescribed Authority otherwise in its order dated 24.3.2007 is clearly perverse and has rightly been set aside by the Appellate court. 8. So far as question of bona fide need and comparative hardship is concerned, these are findings of fact recorded by Appellate court and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity or manifest error therein warranting interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and find no reason to interfere. 9. The writ petition therefore lacks merit. Dismissed. _____________