JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that on 11.12.1968 Ram Saran Lal, husband of opposite party No. 3 had purchased house No. K-64/52-A situate in Mohalla Gola Dina Nath in the city of Varanasi in the name of his wife and as such the later became its owner. The house is a small one inasmuch as it has shop, zina for the first floor and a chabutra on the ground floor and one room, a small verandah and latrine on the first floor. There is controversy on the point whether any construction exists on the second floor. The petitioner was a tenant of the shop in the ground floor from before the purchase of this house by opposite party No. 3. According to her, this house was purchased as it was post 1951 construction and was not governed by the provisions of the erstwhile, U.P. Act III of 1947 and she expected to get it whenever desired. At that time her husband was employed in Varanasi but sometime after he went out of employment and had to join another service at Kanpur. She along with her husband began to live there. In or about the year 1970 her husband's services were terminated even from there and it became necessary for them to go back to Varanasi and reside in their house. The accommodation on the first floor is much too small for their needs. They have no place to entertain their relations and friends. Her husband has no source of livelihood and would like to start some business in this shop. Besides it the water does not reach the first floor on account of low pressure and she would like to fix a water pipe in the first floor. She asserted her needs to be bonafide and also gave out that a number of shops have recently been constructed in the same locality and the tenant can easily have one of them. On those allegations she moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for release to the shop. 3. She asserted her needs to be bonafide and also gave out that a number of shops have recently been constructed in the same locality and the tenant can easily have one of them. On those allegations she moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for release to the shop. 3. The petitioner tenant contested that application inter alia on the grounds that the landlord has no bonafide need and the application was moved simply to harass him with a view to enhance rent, that there is accommodation on the second floor also which can serve her purpose; that her husband has no desire or need to carry on business in the disputed shop and that he is carrying on Kirana and Parchuni business in this shop for the last 15 or 16 years and he will be completely ruined if he is required to vacte it. As regards other shops constructed in the same locality he have out that cannot be had without payment of handsome amount as Pagri, which he is not in a position to pay. 4. The Prescribed Authority inspected the house and gave his report (Annexure 1) on 20.8.75. He held that the landlady had bonafide need for the shop and will suffer greater hardships by the rejection of her application than will be caused to the tenant if the application was allowed. He further held that the tenant can easily take one of the shops constructed in the same locality. Accordingly, the release application was allowed and the tenant was given thirty days time to vacate the shop. 5. The tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act but the learned District Judge agreed with the findings of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed it. He, however, awarded two years rent by way of compensation to the tenant. Hence this writ petition. 6. As stated above the tenant i.e. the petitioner had contended that there is a room and a verandah on the second floor which can meet the requirements of the landlady and the application for release was liable to be rejected. In order to ascertain the accommodation available to the landlady the Prescribed Authority took pains to inspect the building. The petitioner was admittedly not present on the spot at that time and he gave satisfactory reasons for his being absent. In order to ascertain the accommodation available to the landlady the Prescribed Authority took pains to inspect the building. The petitioner was admittedly not present on the spot at that time and he gave satisfactory reasons for his being absent. Be that as it may, it is evident from the report of the Prescribed Authority that he did not go on the second floor to verify whether any construction exists there are not. He remained satisfied with the representation made to him by the landlady that there is no accommodation on the second floor. On 11.9.75 the tenant moved an application before the Prescribed Authority alleging that the landlady had misrepresented and the second floor may be inspected again but no notice was taken of this application. On 9.10.1975 the tenant moved another application to this effect but in vain and the Prescribed Authority decided the application under Section 21 by holding that there exists no construction on the second floor. Then the tenant filed and reiterated his contention in the memo of appeal and arguments but to no useful purpose. The result has been that questions of bonafide need and relative hardship have been disposed or without ascertaining the accommodation available to the landlady. The order passed by the learned District Judge is vitiated on this score. 7. The writ petition is allowed and order dated 23.12.1976 passed by the learned District Judge Varanasi is quashed. He is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh according to law after getting a map of house No. K64/52-A prepared. The appeal will be disposed of positively within two months from the date of this order. Its copy may be sent to him immediately. Costs parties.