JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - This petition by the tenant arises out of a proceedings initiated under section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 for permission to file a suit for his ejectment from the shop in dispute. The case set up by the landlords was that they needed the disputed shop for carrying on business. It was alleged that the tenant had other shops at his disposal where he could conveniently shift his business and would not suffer any hardship. The claim that the landlords needed the shop for business was challenged by the tenant. It was denied that the tenant had any other shop where he could conveniently shift his cloth business. The shops alleged to be owned by him were in fact godown situate in a barren locality where cloth business could not flourish. 2. The prescribed Authority found the need of the landlords genuine. He also came to the conclusion that the tenant would not suffer any hardship if he was evicted from the shop in dispute as the cloth business could easily be removed to the other shops owned by him. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset raised the question that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as he had been nominated to hear cases arising out of the P.A.C. revolt. The order of the learned Judge does not disclose that his jurisdiction to hear the appeal was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. In the counter affidavit it has been specifically asserted that no arguments were in fact advanced challenging the competency of the lamed Judge to hear the appeal. Although this fact has been controverted in the rejoinder affidavit I see no reason to doubt the correctness of assertion made in the counter affidavit. If the question of jurisdiction of the learned Judge to hear the appeal had been raised before him, the learned Judge must have dealt with the matter. The fact that such an argument is not noted in the impugned order indicates that no such point was raised before the learned Judge himself. If the question of jurisdiction of the learned Judge to hear the appeal had been raised before him, the learned Judge must have dealt with the matter. The fact that such an argument is not noted in the impugned order indicates that no such point was raised before the learned Judge himself. Having omitted to raise this point at the appropriate stage, the petitioner is not entitled to raise it for the first time in this Court when the decision of the learned Judge has gone against him. On merits also I am not satisfied that the learned Judge was incompetent to hear the appeal. The learned Judge may have been nominated to deal with the cases arising out of the P.A.C. revolt but he continued to remain an additional District Judge and the case arising out of the Rent Control Act could be validly transferred to him for decision. 4. It was next contended that the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Judge failed to consider the offer of another shop made by the tenant. It appears that the landlords were willing to allow the tenant to continue in the disputed shop provided he gave possession of two shops owned by him in another market. The tenant, however, indicated his willingness to deliver possession of one of those shops only. The matter remained at the stage of offer and counter offer and no agreement was arrived at between the parties. In such a situation it was not necessary for the Prescribed Authority for or the learned Judge to consider that question while dealing with the merits of the case. 5. It was further contended that at best the need for starting a business by Moti Lal alone should have been taken into account and that in any case Amar Nath had no need in present which could be looked into as he was already in employment in the postal department. The contention is without any merit. Amar Nath was admittedly employed in the Postal department but the case set up by the landlords was that on his meagre salary it was not possible for him to run a separate establishment and maintain a family at Agra. He was only temporarily employed and his requirement for a shop was bona fide as he needed to start an independent business and live with the rest of the family at Achnera. He was only temporarily employed and his requirement for a shop was bona fide as he needed to start an independent business and live with the rest of the family at Achnera. The finding recorded by the learned Judge is that Amar Nath was only in temporary employment of the postal department and there was no security of service. He had a large family and Agra being an expensive place, it was not possible for him to run an independent establishment there. Apart from the need of Amar Nath there was a pressing need for Moti Lal also to start a business. The prescribed Authority as well as the learned District Judge accepted the stand taken by the landlord that Hoti Lai was only in the employment of Dau Dayal and not a partner in the fair price shop business carried on in the name of Dau Dayal. The services had been terminated and he was in urgent need of starting a new business to support his family and to marry the unmarried daughters. The learned Judge has taken all relevant facts into consideration in coming to the conclusion that the need of the landlords, was bona fide. 6. The last grievance put forward by the petitioner was that rule 16(2) of the rules framed under Act No. 13 of 1972 has been totally ignored from consideration. The grievance is not justified. The Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Judge have considered the question of alternative accommodation available to the tenant where lie could conveniently shift his cloth business. It is not disputed that the tenant owned the shops in Mohalla Hatia of which at least one was still lying vacant and the other was being used by the sons of the tenant for his diesel oil business. The tenant had several other businesses and was well place in life. The cloth business could be conveniently shifted to one of the shops owned by the tenant and he would not he put to any financial loss or inconvenience. It is after considering these aspects of the case that the court below affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlords for the disputed shop was more pressing and that the tenant would not be put to any hardship if he is evicted from the shop in question. 7. It is after considering these aspects of the case that the court below affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlords for the disputed shop was more pressing and that the tenant would not be put to any hardship if he is evicted from the shop in question. 7. No other point has been pressed before me. The petition has no merit which is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.