Sudhir Agarwal,J. This is a tenants writ petition. The respondents-landlords instituted Rent Case No. 17 of 2003 under Section 21(1)(a) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") seeking ejectment of petitioners and others from the accommodation in question on the ground of personal need. The Prescribed Authority while upholding the bona fide of personal need set up by respondents-landlords, partly allowed application vide order dated 12.04.2012 directing release of some part of tenanted accommodation so that tenants may continue to stay in left part. 2. Aggrieved by aforesaid order the respondents-landlords preferred Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2012 while the petitioners-tenants also preferred Rent Appeal No. 9 of 2013. The Lower Appellate Court by means of impugned order dated 28.10.2013 has allowed appeal of landlords and dismissed tenants' appeal. The order of Prescribed Authority has been modified by allowing landlords' release application in its entirety. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners have no other accommodation and should be allowed to continue. 4. The findings of facts have been recorded by both the courts below upholding personal need of landlord genuine. Once the need of landlord is found genuine, it was thereafter not proper for court below to determine as to how much accommodation would be sufficient for the landlord since a landlord is entitled to live atleast comfortably if not in luxury and cannot be compelled to shrink his requirement and this error of Trial Court has been set at right by the Appellate Court. 5. In Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 , the Apex Court said that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. Therein the Court considered the age of landlord and doubted his need on the ground that in such advanced age, he would be requiring somebody to take care and therefore should live with other family members instead of alone. The Apex Court observed that High Court is rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thinks that because of her age she needs to be looked after. The Apex Court observed that High Court is rather solicitous about the age of the appellant and thinks that because of her age she needs to be looked after. That is a lookout of landlord and not of High Court. The Apex Court disapproved the approach of High Court and observed: "We fail to appreciate the High Court giving such a gratuitous advice which was uncalled for. There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property." 6. Similarly, in R. C. Tamrakar Vs. Nidi Lekha AIR 2001 SC 3806 the Court in para 10 and 11 said: "10. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bonafide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else landlord could have adjusted himself. 11. Though the son of the landlady is a doctor and has constructed his own house, the landlady wants to stay in the suit premises. It is not the case of the tenant that landlady has any other suitable accommodation. Therefore, the High Court rightly set aside the finding of the First Appellate Court holding that landlady could not be compelled to reside with her son as her case was that she wanted to stay by herself in the suit premises because of her health condition and the climatic condition of that place suit her." 7. The above referred authorities though, were in the context of residential accommodation, but the principle that the landlord is the master of arranging his own affairs applies not only in respect to his residential accommodation but also the manner and method etc. of earning his livelihood for maintaining himself and family. 8. In Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679 , the Court said that landlord is best judge of his requirement for his residential or business purpose and he has complete freedom in the matter. 9. Looking to the concurrent findings recorded by Courts below and also the discussions made above, I find no reason to interfere with impugned judgments. 10. Writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 11. No costs. _______________