Sudhir Agarwal, J.;— 1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. The petitioner admittedly is a tenant in a residential accommodation, i.e., a flat on the second floor of House No. 26/59, Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar and the said building and accommodation is owned by respondent no. 2. The landlord-respondent no. 2 instituted proceedings for release of aforesaid accommodation through an application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") registered as Rent Control Case No. 21 of 1993 filed before Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar and the reason for release of said accommodation she assigned in paras 4 and 5 of application, reads as under: "4) That in the meantime the Income Tax Deptt. attached premises No. 7/93, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur owned by the applicant's husband and his brother Late Rameshwar Pd. Gupta. The Income Tax Deptt. has also started to proceeding for sale of premises No. 7/93, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur which are being contested. However, there is every likelihood of the said premises being sold and the applicant and her family being evicted therefrom. 5) That the applicant in these circumstances has to think of shifting to some other premises and as she owns house No. 26/59, Birhana Road, Kanpur she has naturally to fall back upon the said premises." 3. The application was contested by petitioner and Prescribed Authority finding no genuinety or bona fide in the alleged personal need of landlord-respondent no. 2, rejected application vide judgment and order dated 18.12.1998. Aggrieved thereto the respondent no. 2 preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 1999 and the same has been allowed by Appellate Court by means of impugned order dated 31.01.2002 observing that since apprehension of respondent no. 2 is real and substantial that the house in which she is residing is likely to be sold in very near future by Income Tax Department pursuant to some recovery proceedings, she is entitled for release of accommodation in question and hence, setting aside judgment dated 18.12.1998 passed by Trial Court, allowed appeal resulting in allowing respondent no. 2's application and has directed petitioner to vacate premises in question. 4. 2's application and has directed petitioner to vacate premises in question. 4. It is also worthy to mention at this stage that there is another flat on third floor of disputed building which was in possession of respondent no. 3, Sri Ajay Shah who was a tenant thereat. The above application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 was filed by respondent no. 2 as a consolidated application seeking release of both flats, i.e., on second floor and third floor, which were in possession of petitioner and respondent no. 3 respectively and by means of impugned appellate order dated 31.01.2002 release application in respect to both flats, has been allowed. 5. It is admitted between the parties that respondent no. 3 has not preferred any writ petition etc. against judgment dated 31.01.2002 and the same having become final against him the accommodation on third floor of house in question has already been vacated and respondent no. 2 has got its possession. 6. Sri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate stated that it is admitted fact that till date house wherein respondent no. 2 was residing, i.e., 7/93, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is still in her possession and has not been sold out in the alleged recovery proceedings as apprehended by respondent no. 2 in her release application and she and her family is still residing therein. This shows falsity and shallowness in the claim submitted by respondent no. 2 with regard to her bona fide need which has been illegally sustained by Appellate Court. 7. Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 could not dispute that respondent no. 2 is still having possession and ownership of House No. 7/93, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and she and her family is residing therein. He also could not dispute that there is no likelihood at present about her eviction or ejectment from the said house or transfer of said property way of sale to anybody, in the alleged recovery proceedings. 8. In order to sustain an application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 the personal need must be substantive, existing or likely to occur. There must be substantial existing reasons that it is existing or likely to occur in new future but when for the last 20 years the respondent no. 8. In order to sustain an application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 the personal need must be substantive, existing or likely to occur. There must be substantial existing reasons that it is existing or likely to occur in new future but when for the last 20 years the respondent no. 2 is still residing in her House No. 7/93, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and there is no present likelihood of her vacation thereof, the apprehension that she is likely to be evicted therefrom and, therefore, she needs accommodation in question, is clearly bogus, unsustainable and flimsy. The impugned appellate order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned appellate order dated 31.01.2002, so far as it relates to petitioner, is hereby set aside. 10. No costs. _____________