JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter has been heard for final disposal without calling for the counter affidavit. 3. The Release Application has been filed under Section 21(1)(a) for release of the tenanted accommodation which is in the shape of two rooms flat. The need set up by the land-lord is that he requires the premises in question for keeping a driver and his family therein. In paragraph 3 of the Release Application, it is stated that the land-lord owns a Maruti Van bearing No. D.I.D. 1659, a diesel car bearing No. U.P. 53 K 2555 and two tractors. Several drivers had approached him for driving these vehicles but had left the job, as the land-lord could not provide them suitable residential accommodation. 4. It is, further, stated in paragraph 4 that the land-lord is an old person and is suffering from heart disease and as such the Doctors had advised him not to drive the car. His two sons, though well-versed in driving but are unable to do the long driving as they are suffering from Slip-disc and Spondylitis. In absence of a suitable accommodation, which the land-lord could provide, he is unable to employ the driver and hence his agricultural work is being suffered. 5. In paragraph 6, specific need for driver and his family has been set up. The Release Application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the need set up by the land-lord is illusory and cannot be said to be a bonafide need. 6. The Lower Appellate Court on the other hand has come to the conclusion that the need for a driver is the need of the land-lord himself and a specific requirement put by the land-lord in the Release Application is sufficient to come to the conclusion that he requires the premises for his bonafide need. While recording the findings of bonafide need, judgments of this Court in Gurvinder Kaur v. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and Others 2001(2) ARC 405 and Misri Lal v. Special Judge (Additional District Judge), Gorakhpur and Others 1988(2) ARC 430 have been relied upon. 7. Challenging these findings of bonafide need recorded by the Lower Appellate Court, this writ petition has been filed. 7. Challenging these findings of bonafide need recorded by the Lower Appellate Court, this writ petition has been filed. On the question of comparative hardship, the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court has also been assailed. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a driver does not come within the definition of family and the need set up by the land-lord in the Release Application cannot be said to be his own need for the reason that there is nothing on record to establish that the land-lord had employed any driver at any point of time who had left the job for the reason that residential accommodation could not be provided to him. 9. This apart, there is no affidavit of the land-lord or his sons to establish the assertion made in the Release Application that his sons are unable to drive the vehicle. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the need of the land-lord includes the need for his servant. In case the land-lord requires a residential accommodation to keep his servant, that cannot be said to be an illusory need. Reliance has been placed again on the judgments in Gurvinder Kaur and Misri Lal (Supra) in support of his submission. 11. Having considered the arguments/submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, this Court finds that though there cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition that the expression "for occupation by himself" used in Section 21(1)(a) includes personal requirement of the land-lord's servant, his relative or some other person who looks after him. They might not be family member of the land-lord as defined under section 3(g) of the Act but their need may be looked into. However in the present case, such situation does not arise. There is no pleading nor any evidence on record that a person namely a driver who has been employed by the land-lord requires the tenament or any person or driver or servant had left the job just because he could not provide the residential accommodation to him. The need set up by the land-lord is hypothetical. Without there being any person before the Court, it could not have been looked into. The need set up by the land-lord is hypothetical. Without there being any person before the Court, it could not have been looked into. The proposition as laid down in Gurvinder Kaur and Misri Lal (Supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the situation to apply the same does not arise at all in the present case. In absence of any specific pleading or the evidence before the Court, the Lower Appellate Court had committed a grave error of law in considering the need of the land-lord to keep a driver and his family in the tenanted accommodation as his bonafide need. 12. This apart, the Lower Appellate Court has totally ignored the fact that the tenanted accommodation is not a servant quarter. 13. In the considered opinion of the Court, the need set up by the land-lord in the Release Application cannot be said to be a bonafide need. It is mere an illusory need for which premises cannot be released. As the need itself falls, there is no requirement to consider the findings on the comparative hardship of the parties. 14. The judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set aside. 15. The Release Application is misconceived and hence rejected. 16. In order to meet the ends of justice, balancing the equities between the parties, this Court directs that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards monthly rent which would be payable on 07th of each month commencing from 07.01.2016 itself. 17. The writ petition is allowed.