JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – The release application has been filed for the need of residence for Manager engaged by the plaintiff to manage his properties. The plaintiff has come out with the case that he has several properties in the city of Gorakhpur which are in occupancy of different tenants. He also owned a farm house and to look after the farm house and other properties, he needed a Manager. The person who has been engaged for the said purpose now needs a residential accommodation. 2. The tenant has contested the release application on the ground that the Manager does not come within the definition of "family" under section 3 (g) of the Act. The requirement stated in the release application is not genuine rather it is only a desire to evict the tenant. 3. Both the Court below decided against the tenant. While allowing the release application, the reliance has been placed upon the judgement in ARC 2001 (2) page-405 and ARC 1999 (2) page-430, wherein the expression "occupation by himself" as contained in section 21(1)(a) has been interpreted/explained. Those matters relate to residential accommodations wherein the Court has held that the landlord can press the need for his assistant, a relative, or a third person who is looking after him. It was further observed that the Court cannot ask the landlord who is living alone not to take assistance of another person. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, while interpreting the expression "occupation by himself", the need set up by the landlord for the persons therein was found genuine. The word "family" as defined under section 3(g) of the Act has been given expanded meaning. No general proposition has been laid down to include a third person in the definition of "family". The definition of "family" in section 3(g) of the Act is inclusive and relates to the family members of the landlord namely his son, daughter or male lineal descendant of son and daughter and includes a person who is normally residing with him or her. This clearly reflects that only in those case where the landlord is living alone and he keeps a person as his servant or assistant to look after him, the release can be pressed for the need of that person. 4. No such situation arises in present case. This clearly reflects that only in those case where the landlord is living alone and he keeps a person as his servant or assistant to look after him, the release can be pressed for the need of that person. 4. No such situation arises in present case. In the instant case, the landlord says that he requires a Manager to manage his properties. Such Manager may be a person who is not necessary required to live with the landlord. There is nothing in the release application which would indicate that the person who has been engaged as Manager is living with the landlord or the landlord is living alone. Rather the evidence on record shows that the landlord is living in a separate accommodation with his wife, two sons and one daughter in law. Moreover, the alleged Manager namely Shesh Nath Tiwari himself did not come forward nor has filed any affidavit to state whether he was working with the landlord or needed this residential accommodation. 5. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that both the Courts below have gravely erred in law in applying the expression "occupation by himself" in the facts of the present case. This is a case of total miss-application of the legal position. 6. The judgment and order 11.03.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case/P.A. No. 18 of 2013 (Amba Charan Singh Asthana v. Babu Lal (Late) and other) and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Additional District/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Act) in Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2013 (Smt. Vijay Lakshmi and others v. Amba Charan Singh) cannot be sustained, and are hereby quashed. 7. The release application is rejected. 8. However, at this stage, learned counsel for respondent states that as per the admitted case of the petitioner, there are 17 members in the family of the tenant. This accommodation was given on rent to Sri Gabbu Lal son of Shyam Lal, now his heirs who are 17 in number are occupying the premises. One Munna, son of Gabbu Lal had acquired his own house and has shifted therein. There are at-least four adult earning members in the family. They are occupying this premises only for the reason of nominal rent of Rs.18 per month which is being paid for occupation of three large rooms with all amenities. One Munna, son of Gabbu Lal had acquired his own house and has shifted therein. There are at-least four adult earning members in the family. They are occupying this premises only for the reason of nominal rent of Rs.18 per month which is being paid for occupation of three large rooms with all amenities. One floor of the premises in question is in occupation of the tenant. 9. He only prays that in case, the writ petition is allowed, reasonable rent may be fixed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner after instructions admits that there are four adult earning members in the family of the tenant. However, he submits that they are getting meagre salary as they are privately engaged. Having heard on this question, it is held that in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, balancing equities, this Court finds that Rs. 6000/- would be the reasonable rent of the accommodation in question. Every earning member has to part away approximately Rs. 1500/- towards rent, which cannot be said to be on the higher side. 10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed with the direction that the petitioners shall tender rent at a rate of Rs.6000/- per month payable from June, 2016 to the respondent/landlord. Petition allowed.