JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. -This is a landlord's petition arising out of proceedings Section under 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act.) 2. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the shop in dispute having purchased it in March 1970. This shop has been in the tenancy of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 from the time of their great-grand father. It appears that Kamta Prasad and Subhas Chandra opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, are carrying on business of the manufactures of Ayurvedic medicines in the shop. They have no other shop in the city. On the other hand, the landlord, petitioner has three major sons, namely, Jagdish Saran; Rajendra Saran and grand-son Vinod Kumar (son of Jagdish Saran). In this manner the family of the petitioner-landlord consists of five members. Surendra Saran is carrying on the Sarafa business Rajendra Saran is dealing in electric goods. Both of them have got one shop each belonging to the petitioner. Jagdish Saran and his son, Vinod Kumar, have no place where they may carry on their business. The petitioner is himself a tenant of one shop owned by Ramesh Chandra Rastogi. It is situate across the road opposite to the shop in dispute and the petitioner is paying Rs. 7 p.m., as its rent, the petitioner, therefore, applied for release of the disputed shop on the ground that his one son and grandson bonafide and genuinely require it for doing the work of goldsmith. In the course of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority he moved an application to the effect that he is prepared to give to the tenants the shop which is in his tenancy and which is bigger than the shop in dispute. 3. The opposite parties contested that application inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner has no bonafide need for this shop; that he is already in possession of four shops of his own besides one shop which is on rent; that the tenants have no place where they may carry on their business and considerable hardship will be caused to them if they are required to vacate this shop. 4. 4. After going through the material on the record the Prescribed Authority arrived at the conclusion that the need of the landlord is genuine and bonafide and the balance of convenience also goes in his favour. He, therefore, allowed the release application but granted two years' rent as compensation to the tenants. The tenants filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. It was allowed by the learned District Judge, Budaun by holding that the landlord no doubt has bonafide need for shop but greater hardship will be caused to the tenant by allowing the application than will be caused to the landlord if the application was rejected. The landlord has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid order of the learned District Judge. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. Certain facts are admitted on both ends. The petitioner is owner of the shop which is in the possession of the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 12. The petitioner himself is a tenant in another shop which exists in front of the shop in dispute and its rent is Rs. 7 only. The Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court have found that the shop in possession of the landlord is bigger than the shop in dispute. It has also been held that the landlord is paying Rs. 7 per month as rent of the shop which is in his tenancy while he is receiving Rs. 12 per month as rent in respect of the disputed shop. The family of the petitioner consists of himself and four sons. He has got four shops besides a shop in his tenancy. His sons are carrying on business in the four shops which belong to the applicant. The learned District Judge took all these factors in to consideration and held that the petitioner landlord has no doubt need for the disputed shop but on a comparison of hardship he decided the manner against the landlord. The findings of the bonafide need being one of the fact cannot be interfered with at this stage. The only question for consideration is whether a comparison of hardship of the landlord and the tenants was made and does the finding on this point suffer from any manifest error of law ? The findings of the bonafide need being one of the fact cannot be interfered with at this stage. The only question for consideration is whether a comparison of hardship of the landlord and the tenants was made and does the finding on this point suffer from any manifest error of law ? As stated above the landlord ha got four shops of his own, besides the tenanted shop. On the other hand tenants have only the disputed shop in which they are carrying on business of manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was prepared to give the shop which is in the tenancy and it would have served the purpose of the tenants and as such the latter's hardship, if any, could be mitigated. This contention is not sustainable for a number of reasons. In the first place, the question of offering alternative accommodation arises in the case of residential buildings only. The premises in dispute is a non-residential building. Secondly, the landlord has no right to offer the shop in which he himself is a tenant. He has no control over it. He cannot place the opposite parties in its possession. If the petitioner vacate that shop the landlord may apply for its release. There may be a number of applicants for its allotment and it may be allotted according to the rules prescribed. Therefore, the offer was meaningless and on this score it cannot be said that the tenants will not be put to any hardship. For reasons best known to him the landlord did not choose to offer one of the shops belonging to him. It is thus clear that the petitioner has got four shops of his own in which his sons are carrying on business. He has got a shop on rent which is bigger than the shop in dispute. Its rent is only Rs. 7 per month when he is getting Rs. 12 per month in respect of the shop in dispute. The rejection of his application is not likely to cause any hardship to the landlord. On the other hand, if the application for release is allowed, the tenants will be thrown on the road as they have no alternative accommodation. Therefore, the factor of hardship was more in favour of the tenants than the landlord. The rejection of his application is not likely to cause any hardship to the landlord. On the other hand, if the application for release is allowed, the tenants will be thrown on the road as they have no alternative accommodation. Therefore, the factor of hardship was more in favour of the tenants than the landlord. This aspect of the matter was thoroughly considered by the learned District Judge and I find no reason to interfere with this order. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs on parties.