ORDER U.C. Srivastava, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dismissing the tenant's appeal against the order passed by the prescribed Authority allowing the landlords' application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Opposite parties 3 and 4 who are admittedly the landlords of the premises in dispute ever since they purchased the same from its previous owner through registered sale deed filed an application under section 3 of U.P. (temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act in the year 1971. This application was moved against the petitioner as well as three other tenants who were residing in the premises in dispute. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it was alleged that they were tenant of a portion in the ground floor, as well as in the first floor having six rooms five godowns, two tin sheds and verandah in the ground floor and eight rooms, two tin sheds, bath room, latrin, kitchen and open chhat in the first floor at a yearly rent of Rs 5,200/- and they were carrying on business of commission agents in the tenanted building which business became very slack The case of the landlords was that they have closed their commission agent business at Agra and they want to run the very same business at Kanpur in the premises in dispute which they have purchased and they want to reconstruct the said building for their business purposes which according to them was very old building and was likely to fall down at any time having got cracks at many places and there was no strength left in the structure. So far as the case of opposite party No. 4 is concerned, it was stated that he has purchased back side of the house to run a Hotel in the locality. The petitioner contested the said case and the case of the petitioner was that in ground floor opposite party No. 3 was partner in the firm Moti Lal Chajjoo Lai till 25th February, 1970 and now he has no interest in the firm Moti Lal Chajjoo Lal and that is why they were out to harass him. The petitioner contested the said case and the case of the petitioner was that in ground floor opposite party No. 3 was partner in the firm Moti Lal Chajjoo Lai till 25th February, 1970 and now he has no interest in the firm Moti Lal Chajjoo Lal and that is why they were out to harass him. The tenant pleaded in the written statement that it is not correct to state that the building is old or its condition is such that it requires demolition and new construction. According to them the building can last about 50 years, and was taken by them for purposes of business and residence and there was slackness in their business. The so called need of the landlords was challenged and the application was described as malicious. It is thus clear that opposite parties 3 and 4 as per their own allegation purchased a very old tenanted building and expected to get it vacated for carrying on their own business. The parties are known to each other and it is evident that opposite party No. 3 who wants to carry on commission agent business in the reconstructed premises had something to do with the petitioner's concern being a partner earlier in the commission agent business. 2. During the pendency of the case U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force and the application was converted into one under section 21 of U P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and fresh affidavits were filed. Before the Prescribed Authority the landlord also filed a site plan of the house in dispute as well as assessment report and inspection report said to have been prepared by Shri A. T. Patel, Engineer, while the petitioner filed inspection report said to have been given by Shri N. Gupta, Engineer of Nagar Mahapiliki, an approved Architect and Valuer in respect of the house in dispute. The report of Shri A. T. Patel was filed as an annexure to the affidavit of Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, but the affidavit of Shri Patel was not filed on behalf of the petitioner also. The affidavit of the Engineer who is said to have given report in their favour was not filed. 3. The report of Shri A. T. Patel was filed as an annexure to the affidavit of Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, but the affidavit of Shri Patel was not filed on behalf of the petitioner also. The affidavit of the Engineer who is said to have given report in their favour was not filed. 3. The Prescribed Authority after relying on the report of Sri A. T. Patel, which was filed as Annexure to the affidavit read with some other evidence came to the conclusion that the building is an old one having cracks and requires demolition and reconstruction and Rule 17 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 has been complied with. The Prescribed Authority has held that the business of the tenant has slacked down and the tenant has not filed any document from Income tax as well as Sales tax Authorities to show anything to the contrary. As such the needs of the opposite parties 3 and 4 for carrying on commission agent business and fur constructing a good Hotel for visitors is genuine. After recording this finding the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of opposite parties 3 and 4. An appeal against the same came up before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, who also took the give view that the business of the petitioner has slacked down and the needs of the opposite parties 3 and 4 who purchased this old building in the year 19 9(SIC) were genuine and bona fide and they would get it demolished and reconstruct it and they have complied with the provisions of Rule 17 inasmuch as they have submitted a plan which has been duly prepared and conforms to the bye laws of the Local Authority and notwithstanding that the entire sale consideration has not been paid by opposite parties 3 and 4, it cannot be said that their financial condition is not such that they cannot reconstruct the said building. The Appellate Court observed that provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not apply in its entirety, the report of A. T. Patel was admissible and could be read in evidence in holding that the building was old one and requires reconstruction. The Appellate Court observed that provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not apply in its entirety, the report of A. T. Patel was admissible and could be read in evidence in holding that the building was old one and requires reconstruction. So far as the report of Sri Maheshwari prasad Mittal is concerned, the appellate court also rejected the same as having not been proved as there was no affidavit by any one to prove the same. The appellate court held that the Prescribed Authority has rightly released the premises in dispute in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4, but made certain amendments in his order inasmuch as proviso to section 21(b) was not considered and no compensation was awarded, as such two years rent was awarded to the petitioner and with this modification the appeal was dismissed. 4. Sri S. N. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner raised five contentions, the first being that opposite parties 3 and 4 earlier filed an application under section 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and later on the same was converted to be an application under Section 21 of U P. Act No. 13 of 1972, but it was never made clear whether it was an application under section 21(a) or 21(b) and unless the said position was not clear, their applications would not have been allowed, as different considerations are to be taken into account while considering the applications under section 21(a) or 21(b). Secondly it was urged that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not apply in its entirety in proceedings of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, but the authority has got power to receive evidence on the affidavit and the report of Sri A.T. Patel could not have been accepted as Sri Patel has not filed an affidavit and the affidavit by another person was not sufficient to prove the said affidavit and in this view if the report which was filed by the tenant was to be rejected, the report tiled by Sri A.T'. Patel also could not have been taken into account. Patel also could not have been taken into account. Thirdly it was urged that the petitioner in the written statement stated that the premises in dispute was used for residential as well as for business purposes and from the very beginning this matter was before the Prescribed Authority as well as before the appellate court. As such without deciding the question whether the building was used for residential purposes or non-residential purposes or for both, the application under section 21(a) or (b) could not have been entertained or allowed. Fourthly it was contended that the finding on the point of slackness of business of the tenant is hypothetical and consequently it was not a ground for allowing the landlord's application and fifthly it was contended that the comparative need of the tenant and the landlord has not been considered and only bona fide need of the landlord has been considered. 5. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel is concerned a perusal of section 21(a) and (b) makes it clear that it is open to the Prescribed Authority to order eviction if either of the two grounds exist and those two grounds have not been made mutually exclusive. In the present case an application was earlier moved under section 3 of U P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and later on the same was converted to be an application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. A perusal of the finding, recorded by the Prescribed Authority will show that the Prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority have recorded a finding that it could not be a case under section 21(b) of U.P. Act No 13 of 1972. The contention raised by the learned counsel that whether it was treated to be an application under section 21(a) or 21(b) is not clear is not tenable. In the present case as the application has been rather treated to be an application under section 21(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and has been allowed, as such it is open to the petitioner to apply to the District Magistrate for allotting him even a portion of the new building which might be reconstructed after demolition, as is provided in section 24(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 6. 6. It was contended by Sri S.N. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of section 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will show that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code in its entirety do not apply, as some of the powers have been conferred upon the authorities under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Undoubtedly power to receive affidavits and evidence has been conferred, but affidavits cannot be received in evidence unless there is an order to this effect. It was contended by the learned counsel that of course even it could be said that evidence could be accepted on affidavits, then there was no affidavit of Sri A.T. Patel and his report cannot be proved by the affidavit of another person, Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, who has filed his report as Annexure of his affidavit. The report of Sri Patel should also have been rejected like the report which was filed on behalf of the petitioner or opportunity should have been given to him also to file an affidavit in support of the said report. There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report as such had evidentiary value and should not have been accepted in this case as having been proved. It was further submitted that in case the report of Sri Patel was to be taken into consideration the report which was filed by the petitioner should have been taken into account as both the reports stand on the same par notwithstanding that the report filed by the opposite parties was an Annexure to an affidavit which was filed on their behalf. The appellate court has taken into consideration the objection (paper No. 37, dated 4th February, 1972) in which it is admitted that there are cracks in the disputed premises and that one of the Godowns and Chajja require urgent necessary repairs. In the affidavit which was filed by Gopi Das Khandelwal on behalf of the opposite parties, it has been asserted that the building requires repairs. It was further pleaded in para 9 of the affidavit that the building was not repaired even after repeated assurances and all this has been taken as corroborative pieces of evidence supporting the report of Shri Patel. The finding on this point has not been based on the other evidence on the record ignoring the report. It was further pleaded in para 9 of the affidavit that the building was not repaired even after repeated assurances and all this has been taken as corroborative pieces of evidence supporting the report of Shri Patel. The finding on this point has not been based on the other evidence on the record ignoring the report. As the findings are based on the alleged report of Shri Patel which was not proved and could not have been read as evidence in the case, the said finding suffers from serious infirmity. 7. Learned counsel next contended that the needs of the landlord has not been proved bona fide and even if it is accepted that there is slackness in the business of the petitioner, there was no ground that the need of the landlord was proved and the petitioner has got no need of the premises in dispute. Undoubtedly if the business of a person is slack for the time being, it could not be taken to mean that the business will not revive and he is not interested in carrying on business and that by itself will be no ground that such a person will have no need for the accommodation. The conclusions which have been made by the courts below are obviously not in accordance with law. The appellate court has also not recorded a finding that the business of the petitioner has not been closed down and they do not intend to carry on the said business from the premises in dispute or are not in a position to do so. The question of bona fide needs of landlords and comparative needs of the landlord and the tenant should have been decided on the basis of the record and not on such considerations like slackness in business which by itself could not or did not prove that the reeds of the landlords are genuine and that of the tenant does not require the premises in dispute. As the case is being sent back the other ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner shall remain open. 8. In this view, the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 29-4-1977 (Annexure-IV) is quashed and the case is sent back to the appellate court to bear and decide the appeal in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is partly allowed. 8. In this view, the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 29-4-1977 (Annexure-IV) is quashed and the case is sent back to the appellate court to bear and decide the appeal in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is partly allowed. In the circumstances of the case parties are to bear their own costs.