JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that Swami Balanasel, Chela, Swami Maharshi Raman, opposite party No. 2 is the owner of house No. 4 situate in Khurbura Mohalla in the city of Deharadun. It has been in the tenancy of the petitioner since long. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 3 of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the old Act, which was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision allowed by the Commissioner. The petitioner made a representation to the State Government under Section 7-F which was also rejected on 2.8.1969. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner form the party No. 2 also moved an application under Section 21 read with Section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 972, hereinafter described as the New Act. In support of this application be filed an affidavit. On receiving notice of this application the petition filed objections. The Prescribed Authority, however, allowed the release application of opposite party No. 2. An appeal under Section 22 of the New Act was filed by the petitioner but it was rejected by the learned District Judge on 11.7.1977. This petition has, therefore, been filed for quashing the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge, interalia, on the grounds that permission under Section 3 of the old Act was granted to the opposite party No. 2 for performing Kirtan, Satsang and other religious activities in the disputed accommodation and as the permission was not accorded on any on the grounds specified in Section 21(1) or (2) of the New Act, the building could not be released under Section 21 read with Section 43(rr). It was also pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 did not require the building for his residence but he intended to sell it for a good price after giving vacant possession to the purchaser and on this score also the application could not be allowed. It was also pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 did not require the building for his residence but he intended to sell it for a good price after giving vacant possession to the purchaser and on this score also the application could not be allowed. It was further contended that even if any case for release was made out the tenant petitioner was prepared to fore go a portion of the building and the whole accommodation could not be released. 3. As stated above the Prescribed Authority released the tenanted accommodation in favour of the opposite party No. 2 and the appeal has also been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the opposite party No. 2 wanted the writ petition to be disposed of to day in order to avoid unnecessary, delay. I have, therefore, heard both of them on merit and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge did not consider inter alia the merit of the following contentions and their orders are vitiated on that score : (i) The permission under Section 3 of the Act was not accorded on any ground specified in Section 21(1) or (2) of the new Act and as such Section 43(2)(rr) was not applicable. (ii) The opposite party No. 2 does not require the building for his residence but requires it for Kirtan etc. and Sections 21 and 43(2)(rr) cannot be pressed into action. (iii) The Prescribed Authority has power to release even a part of the building which deciding an application under Section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act, - vide Smt. Suraj Devi and others v. Prescribed Authority, 1977(1) Rent Control Reporter 145 : 1976 ALR 704.. The requirements of the opposite party No. 2 can be met by releasing only a portion and the petitioner is prepared for it. 5. I have gone through the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge and I find that both of them have addressed themselves on the first two questions. The learned District Judge has further held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of Section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act. 5. I have gone through the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge and I find that both of them have addressed themselves on the first two questions. The learned District Judge has further held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of Section 43(2)(rr) of the new Act. According to them the permission under Section 3 of the old Act was given on one of the grounds contemplated by Section 21 of the new Act and the question of personal need cannot be gone into again. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the same it may be stated that both of them have not at all gone into the merit of the third question and on that score the orders are vitiated and the case will have to be disposed of afresh by the Prescribed Authority. He will reconsider merit of all the questions afresh. 6. The writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 21.5.1977 and 11.7.1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge respectively are quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to dispose of the application under Section 21 read with Section 43(2)(rr) afresh according to law-expeditiously. The parties will bear their own costs and are directed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 19.9.1977.