JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The petitioners are the landlords of an accommodation of which respondents 3 and 4 are the tenants. An application was made by the petitioners for release of the said accommodation under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The application was opposed by the respondents 3 and 4. Before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners offered premises No. 88/82, Chamanganj, Kanpur to the tenants as an alternative accommodation. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application as against Mumtaz Khan respondent No. 4. He took the view that the accommodation, which was being offered by the petitioners, was suitable for the needs of the respondent No. 4. The Prescribed Authority, however, dismissed the application as against Mohammad Ibrahim respondent No. 3. Two appeals were filed against that order<197>one by the petitioners and the other by Mumtaz Khan. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal of Mumtaz Khan and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved the petitioners have instituted the present Writ Petition. 2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioners that the need of the petitioners was bona fide and pressing and the application under section 21 should have been allowed in respect of both the accommodations occupied by respondents 3 and 4. In so far as respondent No. 3 Mohammad Ibrahim is concerned, the finding recorded by the prescribed Authority as well as the Additional District Judge is that he will be put to greater hardship in case he was evicted from the accommodation in dispute occupied by him than the hardship to which the petitioners may he put in case their application was dismissed as against the said respondent. This finding is a finding of fact and cannot be challenged in a writ petition. 3. In regard to the accommodation occupied by Mumtaz Khan it was urged by counsel for the petitioners that the Additional District Judge committed a manifest error of law in setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority without considering the effect of the offer made by the petitioners that premises No. 88/82 aforesaid may be made available to the tenant as an alternative accommodation. According to counsel, in refusing to consider this aspect of the matter, the Additional District Judge has over-looked the provisions contained in rule 16(1)(f) of the rules made under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that there is substance in this submission. Rule 16(1)(f) provides that where the landlord offers to the tenant alternative accommodation reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family members the landlord's claim for arrears of the building under tenancy shall be construed liberally. 5. As seen above, the Prescribed Authority had come to the conclusion that premises No. 88/82 were suitable to the needs of the respondent No. 4 Mumtaz Khan. This finding has not been set aside by the Additional District Judge, Indeed, he has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter at all. 6. In the result, his order, in so far as the appeal of Mumtaz Khan respondent No. 4 was allowed, cannot be sustained. 7. It was urged by counsel for Mumtaz Khan respondent No. 4 that the petitioners were not the owners of premises No. 88/82 and it may be that ultimately the said premises may not be made available to the respondent No. 4 and on being vacated by the petitioners may be allotted to some other person or may even be released in favour of the owner of the premises. According to the counsel, in that contingency, respondent No. 4 will be thrown on the street. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, in case the Additional District Judge is.satisfied that the application of the petitioners should be granted as against respondent No. 4, on the basis of the offer for an alternative accommodation, he can safeguard the interest of respondent No. 4 by making a suitable provision that the respondent No. 4 will be evicted in pursuance of the order only if the premises No. 88/82 were made available to him. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20th February, 1975 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur, allowing Rent Appeal No. 290 of 1974-Mumtaz Khan v. Km. Bilquess Begum and another is quashed and he is directed to decide the said appeal afresh expeditiously in accordance with law. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20th February, 1975 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Kanpur, allowing Rent Appeal No. 290 of 1974-Mumtaz Khan v. Km. Bilquess Begum and another is quashed and he is directed to decide the said appeal afresh expeditiously in accordance with law. In so far as the relief for quashing the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing Rent Appeal No. 264 of 1974 is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs.