JUDGMENT K.C. Aggarwal, J. - This petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Vth Additional District Judges, Moradabad dated 12-10-1974. By this judgment the appeal filed by the petitioners was partly allowed and the application filed by them under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was accepted. It appears that an application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the petitioners for the release of the premises in question against Allah Bux, respondent No. 3, on a number of grounds which need not be detailed in this judgment. 2. The application was resisted by the respondent No. 3. Having held that the need of the petitioners was not genuine and bona fide, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application. Aggrieved, the petitioners went in appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge was satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the petitioners. But as in his opinion the need of the respondent No. 3. was also genuine he allowed the application filed by the petitioners subject to the condition that they constructed a shop 8 wide and 10' long on the open piece of land lying infront of the shop. Aggrieved by this order of the District Judge directing the petitioners to construct a shop for the respondent No. 3, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The operative portion of the judgment of the learned District Judge runs as under : "The appeal is partly allowed and Alla Bux tenant respondent is ordered to be evicted from the building portion of this shop under his tenancy provided he is accommodated to run his bamboo business in a newly constructed shop on the open piece of land having 6 ft. width and 10 ft. length adjoining to the stair case in yellow colour and leaving at least 10ft open land in front of the newly constructed shop. The rent of this newly constructed shop and the land could not be decided in this appeal but it should not exceed the present rent of this shop in dispute and the parties shall settle the matter themselves. This order will take effect after the construction of the new shop and till then Alla Bux tenant would not be dispossessed from the constructed portion of the shop in question." 3. This order will take effect after the construction of the new shop and till then Alla Bux tenant would not be dispossessed from the constructed portion of the shop in question." 3. Shri H. S. Nigam, counsel for the petitioners, urged that the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction under the law to give any direction to the petitioners to construct a shop for the respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the direction given by him being in contravention of section 21 and rule 16 of the rules framed thereunder is liable to be quashed. 4. Shri Bashir Ahmed, counsel for respondent No. 3, attempted to support the direction of the learned District Judge by relying on clause (c) of sub rule (2) of rule 16. Clause (c) sub rule (2) of rule 16 does not entitle any authority to give such a direction requiring a landlord to make construction for the tenant. Under this clause the Prescribed Authority has only been entitled to make another accommodation available to the tenant. Passing of an order for making the alternative accommodation available to the tenant does not include within its ambit power to give a direction to the landlord to make a new construcrion for tenant. Such a direction is, therefore, against the provisions of the Act. Hence the judgment of the learned District Judge is liable to be quashed. 5. Counsel for the respondent No. 3, however, submitted that even if the direction mentioned above is quashed, the judgment of the District Judge can sustained and should be upheld. I am not satisfied that such a course can adopted in the instant case. It, however, appears appropriate in this case to direct the District Judge the appeal afresh. In deciding the appeal he can again consider the feasibility of giving a piece of land to the respondent No. 3 and decide the rights. He will, however, be not affected by this judgment and will examine all the facts and circumstances afresh. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned District Judge dated 12-10-1974 is quashed. No order as to costs.