JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31-5-1999 passed by Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 5 of 1995(annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and the judgment and order dated 1-9-2008 passed by District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Eviction Appeal No. 23 of 1999 (annexure No.2 to the writ petition). 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the landlady of double storied building No. 199/173, situated at Sadar Bazar Lansdown. The building consist of four rooms each at ground floor and first floor. In the ground floor there are two shops. The respondent Tara Chand Khandelwal was the tenant of one set of two rooms of the said building situated towards northern side which are being used for residential purposes. In the upper story a set of two rooms is in the tenancy of Km. Bimla Sanwal, Km. Indra Sanwal and Km. Usha Sanwal. They are real sisters. In the ground floor a shop of two rooms was in the tenancy of late Nathu Ram father of Jitendra and Surendra Kumar in which they used to run a shop of Hair Cutting Saloon and after the death of Nathu Ram his sons opposite party Jitendra and Surendra Kumar occupied the said shop. 3. The applicant/landlady moved release application U/S 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that opposite parties Km. Bimla Sanwal, is teacher in Govt. Inter College Lansdown, Km. Indra Sanwal is also teacher and she has facility of residence at Central School Lansdown and Km. Usha Sanwal is also teacher in nearby school of the village. The opposite party Tara Chand Khandelwal is Member of Cantonment Board Lansdown and is a powerful man and he can search an accommodation for his residence at Lansdown. 4. In respect of shop at ground floor, it was alleged that after the death of original tenant Nathu Ram his son opposite parties Jitendra Sen is employed as Clerk in Employment Office Lansdown and another son Surendra Kumar is employed in a Factory at Kotdwar and he resides at Kotdwar along with his family. 4. In respect of shop at ground floor, it was alleged that after the death of original tenant Nathu Ram his son opposite parties Jitendra Sen is employed as Clerk in Employment Office Lansdown and another son Surendra Kumar is employed in a Factory at Kotdwar and he resides at Kotdwar along with his family. The applicant/landlady has pleaded her bonafide need of shop in question to open a general merchandise shop for her self and her daughter and the residential accommodations in the occupation of Tara Chand Khandelwal and in the occupation of three real sisters Km. Usha, Km. Indra and Bimla Sanwal are needed for their own residential purposes. 5. The opposite parties filed objections before the Prescribed Authority and alleged that the landlady has no bonafide need of the accommodations and there is acute shortage of residences at Lansdown and only with a view to enhance the rent the release application has been filed. The opposite parties Jitendra Sen and Surendra Kumar in their objection alleged that one Krishna Kumar is running the Hair Cutting Saloon in the shop and he is like family member of late Nathu Ram and the shop is bonfidely required by Jitendra and Surendra Kumar. 6. The learned Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence and hearing the parties, rejected the release application vide judgment and order dated 31.5.1999. Feeling aggrieved the landlady preferred the appeal before District Judge Pauri Garhwal. The learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 1-9-2008 allowed the appeal in respect of release of shop in occupation of Jitendra Sen and Surendra Kumar. However the appeal in respect of tenants Tarachand Khandelwa, Km. Bimla Sanwal, Km. Indra Sanwal and Km. Usha Sanwal, was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved further this writ petition has been filed reiterating the bonafide need of residential accommodations, one set of two rooms in the tenancy of respondents 1/1 to 1/3 (family members of late Tarachand Khandelwal and another set of two rooms in the tenancy of respondents 2 and 3 Smt. Indra Dhasmana and Km. Usha Sanwal. According to the petitioner/landlady she is living in rented accommodation and the above two sets are bonafidely required for her and her daughter’s residence. 8. The respondents filed counter affidavit. Usha Sanwal. According to the petitioner/landlady she is living in rented accommodation and the above two sets are bonafidely required for her and her daughter’s residence. 8. The respondents filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been averred that the shop has been released in favour of landlady by the appellate court and now she has not bonafide need of the two sets of residential accommodations and only with a view to enhance the rent of the residential accommodations the writ petition has been filed. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 this fact has been admitted that they have now retired from service. The landlady ordinarily resides at Dehradun and used to visit Lansdown occasionally and she has no bonafide need of the accommodation and if the respondents are evicted they would be put to a great hardship. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. At the outset it is to be noted here that the landlady had moved the release application in respect of shop on the ground floor and two sets of rooms in the tenancy of respondents in the first floor. The release application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. In the appeal the learned District Judge has allowed the release application in respect of shop in the ground floor and the release application in respect of residential accommodations in the tenancy of respondents Tarachand Khandelwal, Smt. Indra Dhasmana and Km. Usha was dismissed. Against the judgment passed in appeal the tenants of the shop preferred W.P. No. 1902 of 2008 (M/S) Jitendra Sain and another vs. Smt. Kamla Shah and others, was filed in this Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 6-7-2010. 12. Now the only dispute remains to the residential accommodations in the tenancy of the respondents in the present writ petition. Before the Prescribed Authority the respondents Indra Dhasmana has pleaded that due to paucity of space in the school she is residing in the disputed accommodation. The other two sisters Km. Usha and Km. Bimla also shown the same reason of their residing in the accommodation in question. Before the Prescribed Authority the respondents Indra Dhasmana has pleaded that due to paucity of space in the school she is residing in the disputed accommodation. The other two sisters Km. Usha and Km. Bimla also shown the same reason of their residing in the accommodation in question. This fact was also pleaded by the landlady that she is residing in the rented accommodation but the learned Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding that the landlady has no bonafide need since she is residing in a tenanted accommodation and there is no threat on behalf of the landlord and if the tenants are evicted from the accommodations they would be put to a great hardship. This finding of the Prescribed Authority is a perverse finding. This finding has also been affirmed by the appellate Court. 13. Admittedly the landlady is residing in a rented accommodation. The respondents 2 and 3, who were teachers, have now retired and their need of the disputed accommodation comes to an end, as they were residing together in the accommodation during their service period and now they can very-well resides at their house and can search another accommodation to reside. The another set of rooms in the tenancy of late Tarachand Khandelwal is occupied his widow Smt. Krishna Khandelwal and two sons Yogesh and Anuj and their need cannot supersede the need of the landlady who is residing in a rented accommodation and if the disputed accommodations are not released in favour of the landlady she would suffer more hardship in comparison of the respondents/tenants. 14. For the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders passed by Prescribed Authority and the judgment and order passed by appellate court whereby the release application of the petitioner landlady to release the accommodations in dispute in the occupation of the respondents was rejected, are set aside. The release application of the petitioner to release the disputed residential accommodations in the occupation of the respondents is allowed. 15. However, the respondents are given one year’s time to handover the possession of the disputed residential accommodations to the landlady/petitioner, provided undertaking to this effect is given before the Prescribed Authority concerned, within a period of six weeks from today and further they continue to pay the rent of the accommodations to the petitioner/landlady.