JUDGMENT

P. N. BHAGWATI, J.:— The only ground on which the decision of the High Court is challenged in this appeal is that the High Court has not examined the question of comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant in rejecting the writ petition of the appellant, we find that the prescribed authority did consider the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant in the light of the evidence before it and came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was greater than that of the tenant. The District Judge also affirmed this view in appeal and when the matter came to the High Court by way of write petition, the High Court also pointed out in its judgment that "on perusal the appellate court found that the need of the respondent No. 3 was greater than that of the petitioners. This is also a finding of fact and it is not possible to disturb the same in these proceeding." There can be no doubt that a finding that the need of respondent No. 3, landlord was greater than that of the appellant/tenant is a finding of fact and when the High Court has refused to interfere with this finding of fact, we cannot find fault with the High Court, even if the findings were wrong o