JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that opposite party No. 3 is the owner of a building situate in Mohalla Shamli in the two of Najibabad, district Bijnor. A portion of the ground floor was let out to the petitioner in which he is carrying on soap manufacturing and confectionary business for the last more than 14 years. The opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit against the petitioner on the ground that he genuinely required the disputed premises for his own use. It was alleged in that application that the opposite party had retired in 1971. His son aged about 24 years had given up his studies and would like to start business on ground floor. Besides it, the opposite party had a daughter of marriageable age and the accommodation with him was not sufficient for his needs. It was further alleged that he along with his son would like to do handloom work in the disputed premises. 3. The application was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that the opposite party No. 3 had no genuine need, that there was sufficient accommodation in his possession for his residence; that a portion of a ground floor was in possession of other tenants also and the petitioner should have that portion released if he wanted to run any business. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bijnor, inspected the house and gave a report. Ultimately after considering the comparative needs of the parties he rejected the application for permission to sue on the ground that the landlord had no bonafide need. A revision against this order was filed by the opposite party but in the meantime the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation and Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, came into force and it was transferred to the District Judge for disposal, as required by Section 43(m) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The learned District Judge decided it as an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He passed the following order : "The tenant respondent shall vacate the room towards the south including the Kothri. The learned District Judge decided it as an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He passed the following order : "The tenant respondent shall vacate the room towards the south including the Kothri. He will also vacate the Kothri-big (towards east) room which the learned counsel for the appellant had in a liberal response to the Courts gesture of co-existence and himself offered, without consulting his client. The landlord will in the alternative provide the tenant-respondent two rooms near the road. He will certainly get them repaired and fully equipped in accordance with Section 28 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He will also give the Kothris adjoining the passage to the tenant-respondent and will permit him to use the verandah as well as three fourth of the Court-yard for a convenient working of his shop and lemon drop business." It is for quashing this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter and I am in judgment that the order passed by the learned District Judge suffers from two infirmities. In the first place, the proceedings had started on an application under Section 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for according permission to file a suit for ejectment against the present petitioner. The application was rejected by Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 20th of may, 1972. A revision under Section 3(3) of U.P. Act III of 1947 was filed before the Commissioner. During the pendency of this revision the new Act No. XIII of 1972 came into force and the revision had to be transferred to the Court of the District Judge for disposal. Section 43(m) of the new Act simply says that a revision relating to grant of permission under Section (sic) of the old Act pending immediately before commencement of this Act before the Commissioner shall stand transferred to the District Judge and his decision shall be final. It has been held in the case of Maharaj Narain Khanna v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad, 1976 A.L.R. 48, that such revisions have got to be disposed of by the District Judge under the provisions of Act III of 1947. It has been held in the case of Maharaj Narain Khanna v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad, 1976 A.L.R. 48, that such revisions have got to be disposed of by the District Judge under the provisions of Act III of 1947. What I find from the judgment of the learned District Judge is that he treated it as an appeal under Section 22 of the new Act and disposed it of as such. It was a manifest error of law on his part. If he had treated it as a revision under Section 3(3) of Act III of 1947 it would have been necessary for him to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The learned District Judge did not consider these questions at all and his order is liable to be quashed on that score. 5. Another infirmity which is manifest from his judgment is that he decided the matter by giving some alternative accommodation to the tenants. There was no compromise between the parties nor any offer or acceptance of the accommodation. Therefore, the learned District Judge himself was not competent to force the landlord to part with any portion of his compared the bonafide need of the landlord and compared the relative hardships of the two and then granted or rejected the application under Section 3. He did not do so. On this score also the order is to be quashed. 6. The order dated 25.7.1973 passed by the learned District Judge, Bijnore, is quashed and the case is sent back to his Court for disposal of the revision afresh according to law. Costs on parties.