JUDGMENT Mahabir Singh, J.:- The petitioner was a tenant of house no. 108/1 Jarib Ki Chowki, Kanpur. The respondents 3 and 4 are the landlords of the same. They moved an application under Section 21 (I) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) for vacation of the house from the possession of the petitioners. They alleged that they needed the accommodation in question for their need. The respondent no. 3 was said to have become unemployed after having retired from Lal Imli Woollen Mills, Kanpur and he wanted to establish some business in the house in question as he had yet to meet a number of liabilities. On the other hand, the petitioner did not need the same. The house in question was originally let out to him for residential purposes but later he established a tea stall and sub-let it to his relative Baijnath and he himself shifted to a house on the other side of the road. 2. The petitioner contested the application. He alleged that the respondents did not need the accommodation at all and they did not allege as to what business they wanted to do, They were doing other business also. On the other hand, he needed the same for his family. He denied that he sub-let it for a tea stall to his brother-in-law. He was not doing the same on his account but he was doing the same to help him (the petitioner). It was further alleged that some other accommodation in possession of Balwant Singh and Dalpat Singh was got vacated and they have also come in possession of the respondents. 3. The prescribed Authority held that respondents needed the house in question bona fide for their use. He also held that the house in question was in possession of Baij Nath-the relative of the petitioner and so it showed that the petitioner did not need the accommodation for his use. Thus comparing the needs of both the parties, he held the need of the respondents to be genuine. Therefore, he allowed the application subject to the respondents paying two years rent as compensation to the petitioners. 4. An appeal was filed before the District Judge, Kanpur which was transferred to the Addl District Judge (Court No. 4) for disposal. The learned Addl. Therefore, he allowed the application subject to the respondents paying two years rent as compensation to the petitioners. 4. An appeal was filed before the District Judge, Kanpur which was transferred to the Addl District Judge (Court No. 4) for disposal. The learned Addl. District Judge upheld the finding of the Prescribed Authority and held that the needs of respondents were greater than those of the petitioner. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 5. The tenant has now moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Addl. District Judge. Two main points were urged before me in this connection. One is that the authorities below have given inconsistent finding on some important points concerning a matter in question namely about the nature of the connection between the petitioner and Baij Nath about the house in question and also about the purposes about which the same was let out and whatever opinion was expressed, that also was done without any material. Secondly it was also contended that the authorities below had not taken into consideration the additional facts about vacation of some accommodation by Balwant Singh during the pendency of the application under section 21 of the Act, which was also being used by the respondents. 6. So far as the first submission is concerned, this is true that the two authorities below have given different findings about nature of possession of Baijnath in the premises in question : while prescribed authority held it to be something like as partnership as the appellate authority held it to be that of sub- tenancy. But they both agreed that it was. Baijnath who was running the shop and not the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel of respondents contends that actually for the purpose of application of Section 21 of the Act, it is not necessary to define the precise nature of the relationship between the petitioner and Baijnath. All that is necessary is to see whether Baijnath was in possession on his own or on behalf of the petitioner and on this point both the authorities below had held that Baijnath was in possession of the premises on his own and not just to assist the petitioner as claimed by him. 8. I agree with the learned counsel on this point. 8. I agree with the learned counsel on this point. The learned counsel of petitioner contends that this finding is also without any material that Baijnath is in possession on his own. This contention is not acceptable also. It was actually a finding of fact and it is not open for challenge in writ, otherwise also it cannot be said to be without any basis. Baijnath is not a member of the family of petitioner in view of delineation of this term vide Section 3 (g) of the Act, It is not only casually that he has been put in charge of the premises. S) the case of petitioner on whom the burden lay heavily to explain this fact in view of their close relationship (Baijnath is brother-in-law of petitioner) that he was working gratis to assist him not believable. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Prescribed Authority and the Addl. District Judge did not take into consideration an important fact that some accommodations had fallen vacant during the pendency of this case which could be utilised by land-lords for their use but they let them to others and so without that, their findings on the comparative needs of the two sides becomes vitiated. The petitioner had referred to certain premises which were formerly in possession of Dalpat Singh and Balwant Singh. The learned Addl. District Judge has however duly considered this fact. As regards the premises in possession of Dalpat Singh, he has held that it was being utilised by respondent's son Chandra has for his separate business. There is of course no clear finding about that left by Balwant Singh. On the record of this petition, there was no version of respondents about this premises. So I called for the counter filed by respondents before lower court. It was admitted by them it had been let out to Manoranjan cinema as it had fallen down and they had agreed to reconstruct it and adjust the cost in the rent. They themselves were not in a position to invest. The applicant had, however, denied that allegation. A commission was issued to check it and its report as different. It only reported about some renovation. There is, of course, no finding as to whether version of respondents was correct and though it would have been desirable but its commission does not materially affect the case. The applicant had, however, denied that allegation. A commission was issued to check it and its report as different. It only reported about some renovation. There is, of course, no finding as to whether version of respondents was correct and though it would have been desirable but its commission does not materially affect the case. The learned lower court had definitely given a finding that this fact of the two accommodations having fallen vacant did not imply that the respondents did not need the accommodation in question. So all that could be said was that he rejected this contention of petitioner as well but he gave no reason for the same. That may only be an irregularity and considering that accommodation in question was in possession of Baijnath and not petitioner, it would not have made much difference. It has been held in Munni lal and others v. The Prescribed Authority and others ( AIR 1978 SC 29 ) that it is not open to High Court to interfere with findings of authorities below about comparative need of the land-lord and tenant. So that 2nd contention also fails. costs. 10. In the result, the petition has no force and is dismissed with Cost.