JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under section 21 of the Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. The petitioner Har Prasad is the tenant of premises No. 74/71, Dhanukti, Kanpur, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. Respondent No. 2 is the landlord of the premises. He filed an application under section 21 of the aforesaid Act for release of the building on the ground that he bona fide required it for establishing his son in grain business. It was alleged that Har Prasad is the owner of premises No. 81/92 in which there are two shops where he can conveniently shift his business. It was further alleged that Har Prasad is carrying on grain business in Collectorganj Market where also he can shift his business from the disputed shop. 3. The tenant Har Prasad contested the application of the landlord. He alleged that House No. 81/92 is a joint family property consisting of himself and his brother and that there is not shop in his house at Collectorganj where be can shift his business. It was also alleged that the Landlord did not deal in grain business and that his assertion that he wants to establish his son in the shop in dispute was not bona fide. 4. On a consideration of the entire evidence on the record, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the landlord on the ground that the accommodation was not required by him bona fide. The Additional District Judge, Kanpur, has set aside this order in appeal on 2nd December, 1974. Hence this writ petition. 5. I have perused the impugned order of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, on a consideration of the entire evidence on the record, he has come to the conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide. He has also arrived at a finding that the tenant has two shops in his house No. 81/92 in Collectorganj which has been falsely denied by him. One of these shops is vacant to which he can easily shift his business. The Additional District Judge has further come to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was being used by the tenant as a godown and not as a regular shop for doing grain business. One of these shops is vacant to which he can easily shift his business. The Additional District Judge has further come to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was being used by the tenant as a godown and not as a regular shop for doing grain business. The Additional District Judge, has also recorded a finding that the son of the landlord has passed out his M.A. Examination and is unemployed. The landlord's case that he requires the shop to settle his son is bona fide and genuine. On a consideration of the comparative need of the parties, the Additional District Judge was of the opinion that the landlord was in genuine need of the accommodation and that the tenant could easily shift his business in the alternative accommodation in Collectorganj of which he was the owner. In the circumstances, he has rightly allowed the application of the landlord under section 21 of the Act. I do not find any illegality, perversity or manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record to warrant interference with the impugned order of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 2nd December, 1974. 6. For the reasons given above, I find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.