JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent. The dispute is regarding house No. B1-144A-1, Mohalla Asshi, Varanasi. Petitioner alongwith one Smt. Indrawati Devi, purchased the said house from the erstwhile owner. Respondent, who is now represented by his heirs and legal representatives, was a tenant of two rooms of it situate on the ground floor from the times of the earlier owner. 2. Petitioner after purchasing the said house and after division of the same between her and Smt. Indrawati Devi applied for the release of the above two room portion under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that in the family settlement, the aforesaid two room portion and two other rooms in which she is living with her family has come to her share and the rest of the house is with Smt. Indrawati Devi. She requires the two room portion in dispute for the bona fide need of her family as she has three sons and one of those is of marriageable age. 3. The release application has been rejected by the prescribed authority and the order has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 4. Thus, petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court contending that the Courts below have completely miss-directed themselves in discarding the family settlement and in holding that the petitioner has half share and therefore, her need for the above two room portion is not bona fide. 5. There is no dispute that the house in dispute was jointly purchased by the petitioner and Smt. Indrawati Devi. The family settlement is also not disputed. Smt. Indrawati Devi has accepted the same. The said settlement on record clearly proves that the petitioner received only four rooms in the said house including the two room portion in occupation of the respondent. 6. Once the family settlement is acceptable to the parties to the settlement, the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority manifestly erred in law in discarding the same and in holding that since the house was jointly purchased both of them will have equal share in it. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Courts below completely mis-directed themselves in adjudging the need set up by the petitioner. 8. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Courts below completely mis-directed themselves in adjudging the need set up by the petitioner. 8. In view of above, the judgments and orders dated 25.2.2002 and 4.10.2007 are not (sic) tenable in law and are quashed with direction to the prescribed authority to re-decide the release application of the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible by curtailing all unnecessary adjournments and fixing short dates in quick succession. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation.