JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a landlords' petition arising out of proceedings under section 21(I)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. 2. The applicants are the owners of the disputed shop situate in Mohalla Bazar Pukhta Jehangirabad, district Bulandshahr. It was let out to opposite party No. 3 on rent of Rs. 60/- per month. The applicants moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act for release of the said shop on the ground of bona fide and genuine need. It was alleged that they are carrying on cloth business in a rented shop in Jehangirabad. Bashir Ahmad son of petitioner No. 1 and Mohammad Zafar, Mohd. Anwar and lgbal Ahmad, brothers of the said applicant, also carry on the business of selling cloth but for want of a shop they have to go out as hawkers and carry on their business. Therefore, the shop in dispute was genuinely required for their use. It was further alleged that the tenant will suffer no hardship because the Municipal Board Jehangirabad has constructed new shops In the same locality and he can conveniently hire one of them. In the course of arguments it was further set up that Birju, brother of the tenant, has got two shops with him and the opposite party can conveniently carry on his business in one of those shops without suffering any hardship. 3. The application was contested by the opposite party mainly on the grounds that the landlords were already carrying on cloth business on three shops and did not require any shop. He also added that he was an old tenant and would suffer considerable hardship if he was required to vacate this shop. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application. The tenant filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act and the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority by holding that no case for release of the shop was made out. He accordingly set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and rejected the release application. The landlords have, therefore, filed this petition for quashing the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bulanndshahr. 4. While disposing of an application under section 21 of the new Act the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court are required to dispose of two important questions. The landlords have, therefore, filed this petition for quashing the order passed by the learned District Judge, Bulanndshahr. 4. While disposing of an application under section 21 of the new Act the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court are required to dispose of two important questions. Firstly, about bona fide need of the landlord, and secondly, whether rejection of the application will cause greater hardship to the landlord than is likely to be caused to the tenant if the application is allowed. So far as the first point is concerned, the landlords' contention is that there are seven adult and two minor male members in their family. All of them carry on cloth business. They have got only two shops which are not sufficient for their requirements, with the result that some of them have to move about in the villages in order to sell cloth. There is no denying the fact that the landlords and their brothers are dealing in cloth but the learned District Judge has held that they are in possession of three shops on which their business can be conveniently carried on. The learned counsel for the landlords has contended that they are in possession of two shops only and the learned District Judge was wrong in holding that they have got three shops. There appears to be satisfactory reason to disagree with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned District Judge. Even if any weight is attached to the petitioners' contention the opposite party No. 3 has filed a supplementary affidavit and copy of Municipal record to show that brothers of the petitioners and the son of petitioner No. 1 have two other shops on rent from the municipal board during the pendency of this writ petition This document shows that shop Nos. 10, 11, and 12 belonging to Nagarpaltka Jehangirabad have been taken on rent by Maqsood, Mohammad Hanif and Aslam Shadzad respectively. Maqsood cannot be connected with the petitioners and this shop will have to be left out of consideration. Mohammad Han if who has taken shop No. 11, is the real brother of petitioner No. 2 and Aslam Shahzad who has taken shop No. 12 is the son of petitioner No 1. In this manner the brother and son of petitioner No. 1 have acquired two more shops in the same town for carrying on their business. Mohammad Han if who has taken shop No. 11, is the real brother of petitioner No. 2 and Aslam Shahzad who has taken shop No. 12 is the son of petitioner No 1. In this manner the brother and son of petitioner No. 1 have acquired two more shops in the same town for carrying on their business. The application for release was made for the business of these persons also. In this manner the petitioners and other members of their family for whose need release was sought are in possession of four shops. There appears to be no reason why they cannot carry on their business in all these shops and require additional accommodation. As a matter of fact, even the shops held to be in their possession by the learned Additional District Judge will be sufficient to meet their requirements. Therefore, they cannot be said to have any bona fide need for an additional shop. 5. So far as the second factor is concerned, the petitioners hive got four or five shops and will suffer no hardship of the shop in possession of the tenant is not released. On the other hand the tenant opposite party has no other shop in which he may carry on his business. The contention of the petitioners is that Birju, brother of opposite party No. 3, lives jointly and is in possession of two shops. The opposite party can shift to one of those two shops without any inconvenience This contention is not at all tenable because Birju may be a member of joint Hindu family but he can carry on his separate business. There is nothing on the record to show that the opposite party No. 3 has any share in those shops. Therefore, these shops cannot be said to be available to him and he cannot be compelled to shift his business in one of them. It is also urged that the petitioners had offered their own shop to opposite party No. 3 and this offer of alternative accommodation was not considered by the learned lower courts. It has also no force because no offer of alternative accommodation was contained in the application under section 21. It does not seem to have been made before the Prescribed Authority or the lower appellate court because it does not find place in their judgments. It has also no force because no offer of alternative accommodation was contained in the application under section 21. It does not seem to have been made before the Prescribed Authority or the lower appellate court because it does not find place in their judgments. If any such offer was made, there is no reason why one of them would not have refer red to it. An offer not made before the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court cannot be made for the first time in writ jurisdiction (Dilip Kumar and others v. Second Additional District Judge and others, 1977 All Rent Cases 276. Besides it, they have no right to offer a shop in which they are themselves tenants and which is under the control of the Prescribed Authority. Unless the latter agree the shop cannot be available to opposite party No. 3. There is nothing on the record to show that the Prescribed Authority has agreed to allot that shop to the opposite party. It is further important to state that the property in dispute is a shop and rule 16 (f) on which reliance has been placed relates to residential accommodation. So far as non-residential accommodation is concerned, sub-rule (2) of rule 16 applies and it does not refer to offer of alternative accommodation by the landlord. Clause (b) of this sub-rule shows that where the tenant has available with him suitable accommodation to which he can shift his business without substantial loss there shall be greater justification for allowing the application. The shop in the tenancy of the petitioners cannot be said to be available with the tenant. There is nothing on record to show that it will be suitable for his business and he can shift to it without substantial loss. There is also no evidence on the record to show that certain shops constructed by the Town Area Jehangirabad are lying vacant and can be available to opposite party No. 3. 6. For all these reasons the release application was rightly rejected. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with costs on parties.