JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This is a tenant's appeal. It is directed against a judgment dismissing their writ petition. 2. Respondent No. 3 is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute, which consists of four rooms and kitchen, bathroom, latrine etc. The landlord filed an application for permission to sue for the ejectment of the tenants under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The tenants contested the application. During the pendency of the application the new U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, came into force. According to its provisions the application was transferred to the Prescribed Authority for decision according to Section 21 of the new Act. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was more pressing than that of the tenants. The requisite permission was granted. The tenants went up in appeal. The District Judge affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved the tenants filed the writ petition. The only point pressed before the learned Single Judge was that on the admitted facts and the findings the application was not maintainable under Section 21 of the Act of 1972. The learned Judge did not find substance in this submission and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 4. The concurrent findings of fact that the landlord, who is the owner of the accommodation in dispute at Moradabad, was living at Tanda Bandli in the District of Rampur. There his wife was murdered and his brother had instituted a suit against him in respect of some property. The landlord of the shop in which he was carrying on his business at Tanda Bandli had filed a suit for his ejectment. With regard to the tenants the finding was that very few members of their family lived in the disputed house, others had moved out to other places. On a comparison of the needs of the landlord and tenants it was found that the need of the landlord was more pressing than that of the tenants. 5. With regard to the tenants the finding was that very few members of their family lived in the disputed house, others had moved out to other places. On a comparison of the needs of the landlord and tenants it was found that the need of the landlord was more pressing than that of the tenants. 5. It appears that in the application for permission the landlord had stated that out of the four rooms in the accommodation in dispute, he intended to use one outer room as a shop for doing some cloth business till he was able to make arrangement to obtain another shop for his business. 6. For the appellants it was contended that since the landlord wanted to use the accommodation partly for business purposes, the application was not maintainable because of the second clause of the third proviso to Section 21. This proviso says that no application under clause (a) shall be entertained in the case of any residential building for business purposes. In other words, if a residential building is intended to be occupied for business purposes, then the application will not be maintainable. Here the landlord wanted to use one of the rooms for business purposes only temporarily till he was able to obtain some other shop. In view of this special feature of the case, it cannot possibly be said that the residential building was intended to be occupied for business purposes within meaning of the aforesaid proviso. The application for permission to sue for the ejectment of the tenants was maintainable. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.