JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is landlord's petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the building No. 745 situate in Malinwali Gali in the town of Hathras. He resides in the first floor of this building. A portion of the ground floor consisting of 8 rooms was allotted to the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of his godown. The petitioner moved an application under section 21 of the said Act for release of the premises in possession of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that he bona fide requires it for his own use. As regards his requirement he gave out that his eldest son Suresh Chandra is dealing in cloth in a portion of the Pauli of his house which is not sufficient for his requirement. His another son Satish Chandra also needs a shop for himself. Besides it the family of the petitioner is growing and consisted of 9 members at the time of making the application for release. Thereafter three more members (two sons and one daughter of Suresh Chandra) have also been added to the family. The petitioner's wife is suffering from advanced Branchial Asthama. On the medical advice she should not be allowed to go on the first floor and the ground floor is needed for accommodating her. It was also alleged that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are carrying on their business in a building situate in Hanuman Gali as well as in a shop situate opposite to the disputed shop. According to him the disputed shop was being kept locked all the time. Therefore, on the ground of bans fide need and availability of alternative accommodation to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 release of the disputed building was sought. 3. The respondent contested the application, inter alia, on the grounds that the respondent No. 2 alone is the tenant and respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have nothing to do with it. According to them the respondent No 2 is carrying on cloth business in the disputed shop for the last 13 years and had created close contacts with the clientale and customers visiting Malinwali Gali where most of the shops dealing in cloth are situate. 1 and 3 have nothing to do with it. According to them the respondent No 2 is carrying on cloth business in the disputed shop for the last 13 years and had created close contacts with the clientale and customers visiting Malinwali Gali where most of the shops dealing in cloth are situate. The said respondent has acquired goodwill and will suffer irreparable loss if he is required to vacate the disputed shop. According to them the petitioner has no bona fide need and the contesting respondent was using a portion of the building in Hanuman Gali and opposite to the disputed shop only as a godown. 4. After going through the evidence on the record the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord is entitled to the benefit of Explanation 4 to section 21 (1) of the Act, that his need is genuine and greater hardship will be caused to him if his application for release is rejected than is likely to be caused to the tenant if the application is allowed. He also came to the conclusion that the tenant has got two alternative accommodations and it will minimise his inconvenience, if any. The release application was accordingly allowed and the tenant was granted 30 days' time to vacate the building. 5. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act and the learned District Judge, Aligarh came to the conclusion that Explanation 4 to section 21 (1) of the Act is not applicable to this case, the landlord has no doubt bona fide need but greater hardship will be caused to the tenant if he is required to vacate the building than will be caused to the landlord if the application for release is rejected. He also came to conclusion that the disputed shops are being used for transacting cloth business and the landlord's contention that they are being kept locked is wrong. According to him the shop opposite to the disputed building and portion of the house situate in Hanuman Gali are being used only as godowns. Extensive cloth business is being carried on the disputed shops. Therefore, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of release. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. Extensive cloth business is being carried on the disputed shops. Therefore, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of release. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The material on the record clearly shows that the petitioner is living in the first floor which consists of two bed rooms measuring 12' x 11' x 9' each, one room 15'x 7' and 5', two verandah, one small balcony, kitchen, store and bathroom. His family admittedly comprises of himself, his wife, two sons namely Suresh Chandra and Satish Chandra, wife of Suresh Chandra three daughters, and two sons and one daughter of Suresh Chandra. In this manner there are 8 adults and 3 minor members in his family. The building No. 745 of which the disputed shops are a part consists of several portions which are admittedly in possession of tenants. The first question which arises for consideration is whether benefit of Explanation 4 to section 21 (1) of the Act can be extended in a case where the premises are let out to a number of tenants and the landlord occupies only a portion of the building. In Parul Devi v. Ashok Raj, 1977 All. W.C. 210 and S.K. Chatterji v. Hira Lal, 1976 All. W.C. 237, it has been held that this Explanation applies only to a case where there is one tenant. It does not apply to a case where there are two or more tenants and the remaining part is in possession of the landlord. The mere fact that the landlord moves an application under section 21 against all the tenants will make no difference. In the instant case the application for release has been moved against one tenant only. Therefore the learned District Judge was right in holding that Explanation 4 is not applicable to this case. 7. Even if the said Explanation was applicable it would not have advanced the petitioner's case much further. As held in the case of Smt. Smriti Marthand v. District Judge Kumaun Nainital, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1783, comparative hardship of landlord and tenant has got to be taken into account notwithstanding the fact that the case fell under Explanation 4 to section 2. 8. As held in the case of Smt. Smriti Marthand v. District Judge Kumaun Nainital, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1783, comparative hardship of landlord and tenant has got to be taken into account notwithstanding the fact that the case fell under Explanation 4 to section 2. 8. Both the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned District Judge have come to the conclusion that the landlord has got bona fide need for additional accommodation because of his growing family and one of his sons requires a shop for doing business. He also came to the conclusion that the wife of the petitioner is ill and needs to be accommodated on the ground-floor. This finding of bona fide need being on a question of fact cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration is whether the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application would be greater than the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application. The learned District Judge has carefully considered the entire evidence on this point and has cone to the conclusion that the hardship to the tenant will be greater if the application is allowed than to the landlord by rejection of the application. I have no reason to disagree with this finding of the learned District Judge because there is not an iota of evidence to warrant that the respondents are keeping the disputed shops, locked and carrying on business of selling cloth on the shop opposite to the disputed one or in Hanuman Gali. The material on the other hand shows that accommodation in Hanuman Gali and the shop opposite to the disputed shop are being used as godowns and for temporarily accommodating the customers. The entire business of selling cloth is being done on the disputed shop a portion of which is also used as office. Copy of the assessment order was filed to show that in one year the respondent transacted business of 9 lacs. It shows the magnitude of the business which be is carrying on. There is nothing to warrant that part of this business is being carried on at that shop opposite to the disputed one or in the accommodation situate in Hanuman Gali. It shows the magnitude of the business which be is carrying on. There is nothing to warrant that part of this business is being carried on at that shop opposite to the disputed one or in the accommodation situate in Hanuman Gali. A commissioner was also appointed to see whether the respondent is doing any business on the disputed shops and he appears to have reported that business of selling cloth is actually carried on' the disputed shop. He checked the account books of the respondent and found that on a single day cloth worth Rs. 6,700/- was sold. It shows that the respondent is carrying on large scale business of selling cloth in the disputed shop. He has no alternative accommodation for carrying on this business. The shop in front of the disputed one measures 8' 9" x 9' and is much too small for business of said magnitude. Even if the respondent's contention that a partition has taken place between him and his father is disbelieved there is nothing to show that the house in Hanuman Gali is being used for selling cloth. The disputed shop is situate in a locality where only cloth shops exist. He ha,, established contacts with his customers and earned certain goodwill. If his business is uprooted from here and he is forced to carry on business either at his house in Hanuman Gali or on the shop opposite the disputed shop he will suffer considerable hardship and will also be put to irreparable injury. On the other hand the landlord is not likely to suffer much hard-ship if his application is rejected. Therefore, there is no manifest error in the order passed by the learned District Judge and no interference is called for. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs on parties.