Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, counsel for contesting respondents.

2. Petitioner preferred a release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of an area shown in the application as A, B, C and D measuring 18 x 18 feet situated in Mohalla Parhpur, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as disputed accommodation). The need of petitioner set up in the release application was for establishing a chamber for his son. This fact was supported by an affidavit by son himself to substantiate that he requires a separate independent chamber for conducting his professional work. The disputed accommodation was initially let out to one Lalta Prasad Shukla at rent of Rs.150/- per month, which was increased by 10% every five years.

3. The original tenant expired in December, 1996. Subsequent to his death, Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla and Shri Shyam Karan @ Shyam Narayan Shukla stepped in their father’s shoe and premises continued to be in their tenancy. Release application was filed to fulfil requirement of son of landlord, which was numbered as P.A. Case No. 20 of 2002, Om Prakash Gupta v. Shri Shyam Karan @ Shyam Narayan Shukla and others.

4. Landlord claimed that original tenant, Lalta Prasad Shukla, used to occasionally open shop and conduct business and after his death, elder son respondent No. 1 who is working in bank, used to sit sometime and another son carried as an agent of post office. Stand was taken by the landlord that the disputed accommodation is not put to regular use and can very well be released. In fact, original release application was filed against Hari Prasad Verma as well, who was arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the release application. He had jewellery business, which was running on loss, therefore, he started selling lottery tickets after closing his jewellery business. It was further claimed by landlord that opposite party No. 3 has another shop in the main Sarafa market, Urdu Bazar, therefore, he had no requirement. He is not a party in the present petition.

5. Landlord’s case was that his son Ved Prakash Kesharwani started practice in the year 1996. He has small house for residential purpose and at present he is using a small room to suffice need of his chamber, which is insufficient for library and his file as well as also dealing with his clients in such a congested atmosphere. Landlord is also an Advocate and son used to previously practice with him but now he has an independent practice and he requires a separate chamber.

6. Prescribed Authority, vide judgment and order dated 21.8.2007 allowed release application holding that need of the petitioner is bonafide and on comparison of respective hardship, balance tilts in favour of landlord. The judgment and order of Prescribed Authority was challenged by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Rent Appeal No. 14 of 2007, which was allowed by District Judge, Gorakhpur, vide judgment and order dated 31.1.2008.

7. On perusal of judgment of appellate Court, it transpires that appellate Court also confirmed findings of Prescribed Authority on the question of ‘bonafide need’ but recorded a conclusion that comparative hardship suffered by tenant would be more than the landlord and consequently release application was rejected, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.

8. Sri Arvind Srivastava, has advanced a number of arguments. First argument is that judgment of appellate Court one being that of reversal on the question of comparative hardship but no reason was assigned why conclusion arrived at by Prescribed Authority is not correct and same was not confirmed. It is asserted by counsel for petitioner that finding on comparative hardship suffered by landlord is based on erroneous assumption. It is arbitrary and capricious, therefore, stands vitiated in law. Advocate Commissioner, who had inspected residenti