JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings under section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. Shop No. 353 and 354 are contiguous to each others and are situate in Sabun Godam, Meerut. The petitioners are the tenants of shop No. 353 and the opposite party No. 2 was a tenant in shop No. 354. The latter purchased both the shop in 1969 and as such the petitioners became tenants of respondent No. 2. The petitioners are carrying on vegetable business' in shop No. 353 while respondent No. 2 is carrying on the business of selling and repairing cycles in shop No. 354. At first the respondent No. 2 filed an application under section 3 of the U.P. Act III of 1947 for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the tenants but it was rejected on 30th October, 1973. On 12.11.1973 after the commencement of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 the landlord filed another application under section 21(1)(a) for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide need. He gave out that he had a shed in front of his shop No. 354 which was removed by the municipal board and there became dearth of space for his mechanics and customers. It was also alleged that the tenants were not sitting on the disputed shop but one Sukhram was sitting on it and as such they had no need for it. According to him, the tenants, main source of livelihood was agriculture. 3. The application was contested by the tenants, inter-alia, on the grounds that the application under section 21 after rejection of the application under section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 1II of 1947 was not maintainable, that the landlord had no bona fide need for the shop and that they would be put to irrepairable loss if they were evicted from the disputed shop. They also denied that they were carrying on agriculture or had allowed Sukhram or anyone else to use the disputed shop. The Prescribed Authority rejected the releases application. The landlord filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act and the learned First Additional District Judge, Meerut, allowed it by holding that the landlord has bona fide need for the same and that he will suffer greater hardship if the release application was not allowed. 4. The Prescribed Authority rejected the releases application. The landlord filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act and the learned First Additional District Judge, Meerut, allowed it by holding that the landlord has bona fide need for the same and that he will suffer greater hardship if the release application was not allowed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the entire material on the record. So far as the question whether the application under section 21 was barred by the principle of res judicata is concerned, it may be stated that in the course of the appeal the tenants filed a copy of the order passed under section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947. It shows that the application was rejected on technical grounds, viz. for want of proper verification. Since it was not rejected on merits the subsequent application under section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was not barred. 5. In the second place, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Prescribed Authority had made a correct appraisement of the entire evidence but the learned Additional District Judge misread the whole evidence and came to the conclusion that there was bona fide need of the landlord and greater hardship will be caused to him if the shop is not released in his favour. There is force in his contention inasmuch as the first ground which weighed with the ]earned Additional District Judges in holding bona fide need of the landlord is that the shed in front of the shop has been demolished by the Municipal Board and in its absence there is no place where his mechanics may work or the customers may stand. The learned Additional District Judge forgot that the respondent No. 2 had raised this shed in an unauthorised manner and was not entitled to use it. The Municipal Board had rightly removed it. That cannot be a ground for having the shop in dispute vacated. 6. In the second place, the learned Additional District Judge has come to the conclusion that the main source of livelihood of the petitioners is agriculture. He was inclined this view because the landlord had said it in his affidavit. The Municipal Board had rightly removed it. That cannot be a ground for having the shop in dispute vacated. 6. In the second place, the learned Additional District Judge has come to the conclusion that the main source of livelihood of the petitioners is agriculture. He was inclined this view because the landlord had said it in his affidavit. This too should not have weighed with the learned Additional District Judge because it was nowhere alleged in the application under section 21 (vide annexure 'I' to the petition). 7. Lastly, one more factor weighed heavily with the learned Additional District Judge. He came to the conclusion that the tenants are not using the disputed shop but have allowed one Niranian to sit on it. Even this conclusion was based on misreading of evidence inasmuch as in his petition the landlord had alleged that one Sukhram was sitting on the shop. In the affidavit he was inclined to say that Niranjan was sitting. No attempt was made to reconcile this contradiction. It would thus be clear that the finding on the landlord's need was based entirely on misreading of evidence and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge suffers from manifest error of law. 8. So far as comparison of hardship is concerned, I find that the learned Additional District Judge has not at all applied his mind to the same. Therefore, his order is liable to be quashed. 9. In the result the order dated 5th May, 1977, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Meerut, is quashed. He is directed to dispose of the appeal a fresh according to law. Costs on parties.