JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The petitioners are co-owners of a part of premises No. 77/156 Latouch Road, Kanpur. They purchased the said premises on 27-5-1969. The respondent No. 1 Kashmiri Lal was originally the tenant of the first floor of this accommodation. The petitioner's case is that he had sublet the said portion to opposite party No. 2 Deoraj. Since then Deoraj is in possession of the first floor. The petitioner No. 1 lives along with his father in house No. W-10 Gaushala Juhi. The petitioner No. 2 is living alone in a rented house at Rs. 5/- per month. An application under section 3 of the U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act was filed by the petitioner for permission to file a suit for ejectment of Kashmiri Lal and Sri Deoraj. This application was finally contested upto the State Government and was rejected under section 7-F of the said Act in January 1972. Thereafter, the instant application was filed under section 21 of Act XIII of 1972. The petitioner claimed the premises for their personal needs on the ground of a bona fide and genuine need. It is also urged that Kashmiri Lal is the owner of house No. 108/151, Gopal Talkies, Kanpur. This house consists of two storeys. It was also alleged that Deoraj is the owner of premises No. 68/175 Lokman Mahal, Canal Road, Kanpur which is a pucca building. The petitioner offered to provide alternative accommodation to the tenants viz., premises No. 86/8 which is hardly one k. m. from the accommodation in dispute. 2. The Prescribed Authority after considering the need of the parties came to the conclusion that the respondent-tenants were the owners of residential houses in the city of Kanpur and they could easily shift to their house after slight repairs. He, therefore, allowed the landlord's application under section 21 of the Act. He granted the respondents three months time for effecting the repairs and for releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Kanpur by the tenants which has been allowed vide his order dated 25-5-1974 hence the present writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant documents on the record. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant documents on the record. The main question which has been emphasised by the petitioner's counsel is that in view of Explanation I of section 21 of Act XIII of 1972, the tenants being the owners of residential building in the same city they could not be allowed to object against an application filed by the landlord under section 21 of the Act. The relevant explanation runs as follows :- Section 21 (1). Explanation : "Where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependent on his has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant sate after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this subsection shall be entered." The dispute, therefore, between the parties narrows down in a very small ambit. The question for decision is whether the tenants are owners of residential accommodation in the city of Kanpur. The Prescribed Authority has made an observation that "it is admitted that both parties have one house each of their own and both of them can and should shift to their own houses in order to hand over possession of premises No. 77/156 to the landlord". The District Judge in appeal while dealing with this question has observed that appellant No. 1 owns his premises No. 108/151 in Mohalla Gopal Talkies which was previously in the possession of Prabhat Bakeries who were carrying on confectionary goods. The appellant No. 2 also does not own a house. The premises No. 681155 Lokman Mahal is in the shape of godown for keeping coal. These premises could hardly be used for residential purposes. 4. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed in this court on contested question. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it has been specifically averred on personal knowledge that Kashmiri Lal is owner of house No. 108/151 Gopal Talkies, Kanpur. This house consists of two storeys. Two shops are situate on the ground floor besides a big hall and a big hall used as a bakery. Its proprietor Shri Hukum Chand lives in the same premises on the first floor which consists of 5 or 6 rooms. This house consists of two storeys. Two shops are situate on the ground floor besides a big hall and a big hall used as a bakery. Its proprietor Shri Hukum Chand lives in the same premises on the first floor which consists of 5 or 6 rooms. These rooms are not used for bakery purposes and are used for residential purpose by Hukum Chand. In reply to these allegations it has been alleged in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that house No. 108/151 is not suitable for residential purposes. In the ground floor their is no residential accommodation. The whole house is in a dilapidated condition and orders have been issued by the competent authority for its demolition. A true copy of the order dated 19-9-1975 has been filed as annexure 1 to the counter affidavit. It has further been alleged that Hukum Chand is now dead and the upper portion of the house on account of its being dangerous is not being utilised by any one. In reply to these assertions, the petitioner has stated in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit that it is wrong to say that house No. 108/151 is not suitable for residential accommodation or is in a dilapidated condition. The Notice annexure I has been procured by the tenants. If this notice had been genuine, the house would have been demolished by now. It is also averred therein that the portion which was in the possession of Hukum Chand is also in the possession of Kashmiri Lal. It has been wrongly alleged that no body is living in it. It has further been averred that the portion which is the subject matter of the notice is not that portion which was in possession of Hukum Chand or Kashmiri Lal. These in brief are the entire allegations with regard to this disputed question of fact. 5. I have carefully examined the impugned order of the (District Judge, Kanpur. In my opinion he has not properly considered the question whether the tenants own alternative accommodation. So far as Kashmri Lal was concerned the District Judge has mentioned that house premises No. 108/151 was previously in the possession of Prabbat bakeris who are carrying on business of manufacturing confectionary goods. In my view, the position as it stood on the date of passing of the order should have been considered by him. So far as Kashmri Lal was concerned the District Judge has mentioned that house premises No. 108/151 was previously in the possession of Prabbat bakeris who are carrying on business of manufacturing confectionary goods. In my view, the position as it stood on the date of passing of the order should have been considered by him. With regard to respondent No. 2, the District Judge was of the view that premises No. 168/185 is in the shape of godown for keeping coal. Shape of a particular premises is no guiding factor to determine whether it could or cannot he used for residential accommodation. The material which has been placed before this Court on this question in my opinion throws sufficient light on the existence of the accommodation in question as also whether the accommodation can be used for residential purposes. But since it is a disputed question of fact I would not like to enter into it myself. It would be more in keeping with justice that this question be considered afresh by the District Judge himself having regard to the entire material on the record. It appears from the affidavits filed in this Court that circumstances have also changed partially. It will be open to District Judge to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in order to do justice in the case. In case the District Judge is of opinion that the tenants are possessed of residential building in the city of Kanpur, it will not be open to the tenants to file any objection against the bona fide need of the landlord. Of course it will be open to the court to consider the question whether the landlord does require the accommodation for his bona fide needs. 6. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that this writ petition should be allowed and the impugned order of the District Judge dated 25-5-1974 should be set aside. I accordingly allow this petition and set aside the impugned order of the District Judge. I remand the case to him for rehearing of the appeal in the light of the observations made by me above. Costs of this court shall abide the result.