ORDER U.C. Srivastava, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the tenant challenging the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura dated 27.1 77, dismissing the tenant's appeal preferred against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the land- lord's application under Section 21 of the U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 releasing the premises in dispute in favour of the landlord. 2. The opposite party No. 3 came forward with a case that he owns a big building, and a sketch map of that building, which is relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition, has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'I'. In this building there are five front portions which are being used as shops and each portion has got one inner room, which is attached to the shop. Out of these five shops, two shops along with inner rooms ate in possession of the landlord, who is carrying on his business thereon, and apart from these shops the landlord is in possession of one more room at the back of the shops and as such the landlord is in possession of five rooms. Adjacent to the shop of the landlord, one door shop with an inner room is in possession of Firm M/s. Ram Chandra Ganeshi Lal and thereafter one door shop along with an inner room is in possession of one Ganga Ram who was carrying on some business. The remaining shops with inner rooms are in possession of the petitioner, which are subject matter of the present dispute. At the back of the shop of Firm M/s. Ram Chandra Ganeshi Lal, there is a big room and another room connected to it, both in possession of one Ram Kumar, who is said to be the brother of the landlord, as a licencee of the landlord. At the back of the petitioner's shop there is a room which is in possession of the petitioner and Tanga Prasad and the landlord's son - Jai Prakash, who is M.B B.S , wants to carry on pathological Clinic with X ray machine plant from the aforesaid shop. At the back of the petitioner's shop there is a room which is in possession of the petitioner and Tanga Prasad and the landlord's son - Jai Prakash, who is M.B B.S , wants to carry on pathological Clinic with X ray machine plant from the aforesaid shop. After coming into force of U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 the landlord filed an application under Section 21 of the said Act against the petitioner as well as against Ganga Ram for release of the shop in their possession on the ground that his son has passed M.B B.S. examination and he wants to establish a Pathological Clinic with X-ray and for that be requires an area of 20' x 20'. It was not the case of the petitioner that apart from obtaining a degree of M.B.B.S. his son has not obtained any proficiency in M.B.B.S. 3. The said application was contested by the petitioner and Ganga Ram on various grounds including the ground that joint application against two tenants was not maintainable and the alleged petition was not bona fide and at least he was interested in evicting the petitioners, who are very old tenants, because of business rivalry. 4. The petitioners inherited tenancy rights from their father and Hari Shankar one of the heirs separated in the life time of the father and as per admission of the landlord also be is carrying on business separately in another shop on Kotwali Road. the Prescribed Authority allowed the application treating the same to be the application with regard to Ganga Ram and ordered release of the shop in possession of Ganga Ram but he dismissed the application so far as the petitioners are concerned. Against the said order the landlord as well as Ganga Ram filed appeals before the District Judge and the District Judge as appellate authority allowed the appeals of the landlord as well as of Ganga Ram and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and sent back the matter to the Prescribed Authority with certain directions. It was also directed that the application against Ganga Ram should be treated as separate and a fresh petition may be filed. It was also directed that the application against Ganga Ram should be treated as separate and a fresh petition may be filed. After the remand that application was treated as an application against the petitioners and a separate application was filed against Ganga Ram and both these applications were disposed of by the Prescribed Authority, who released the said premises, i.e. he decided the case in favour of the landlord and against both the tenants. Two appeals were filed one by Ganga Ram and the other by the petitioners. The appeal filed by Ganga Ram came for hearing by before the III Additional District Judge, Mathura, who wide his judgment dated 25.11.76, a copy of which is placed on the record as Annexure 9, partly allowed the appeal and released inner portion, i.e., the attached room as so far as the shop is concerned Ganga Ram was allowed to retain its possession. The appeal filed by the petitioners came up for hearing after they failed in getting the case transferred or connected with the earlier one. 5. Sri S.C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as an offer was made before the Prescribed Authority that they are prepared to part away with the attached room, which along with a part of the premises in possession of Ganga Ram would fully cater the need of the landlord as per allegations made by the landlord in his application, which offer stands now. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the purpose of his son for opening a pathological Clinic and fixing a X-ray plant was genuine and released the entire premises in favour of the landlord. So far as the question of licensee is concerned, the Additional District judge observed that it was not necessary to disturb the own brother of the landlord who may be a licencee. 6. Sri Khare further contended that still the necessary formalities have not been completed and without taking into consideration the guidelines laid down in rule 16 of the U P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Rules the Additional District Judge has dismissed the said appeal. It was contended by Sri Khare that U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 granted protection to the tenant but no protection was given to the licencee under the said Act. Rent and Eviction) Rules the Additional District Judge has dismissed the said appeal. It was contended by Sri Khare that U P. Act No. XIII of 1972 granted protection to the tenant but no protection was given to the licencee under the said Act. The Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority are required to compare the need of a tenant vis-a-vis the landlord but no protection has been granted to the licensee. In the present case the Appellate Authority has committed an error in conferring protection to the licencee and in ordering his eviction from a part of the premises, in his possession. 7. Learned counsel has also urged that the Appellate Authority has altogether ignored the admissions which were made by the landlord in his statement before the Prescribed Authority regarding the carrying of a separate business by Hari Shankar, one of the heirs of Babu Lal, who himself admitted that Hari Shankar was carrying on a separate business in a shop on the Kotwali Road. A perusal of the two judgments passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority so that they have not taken into consideration the admission of Hari Shankar. Thus in view of the fact that certain admissions of Hari Shankar have not been taken into consideration and the guide lines laid down in Rule 16(2), (a), (b) and (c) of the Rules have been ignored and the licences, who has been granted protection, has been preferred to a tenant, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable and the same suffers from manifest errors of law. In this view the writ petition is allowed and the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Mathura, dated 27.1.77, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure X, is quashed and the case is sent back to the District Judge who may decide himself or send it to some other Additional District Judge other than who decided it earlier in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 8. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.