JUDGMENT M. P. Saxena, J.:- This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XII1 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. Lala Mukund Lal was the owner of shop No. 112 (New 127) situate at Chandi Road, Hapur. About 35 years ago he had let it out to the petitioner Jagdish Saran on a monthly rent of Rs 22/-. The latter installed Ata Chakki in it and took rower connection. He also fixed a motor of five horse power for running the Chakki On 28-5-1952 Lala Mukund Lal executed a will whereby he bequeathed his property including the shop in dispute in favour of his wife Smt. Kastoori Devi for her life and the vested remainder was given to Mangal Sen. Devendra Kumar, Mool Chand and Jagdish Prasad, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5. These opposite parties are the grand-sons of the wife's brother of Lala Mukund Lal. 3. In the year 1964 Lala Mukund Lal moved an application under section 3 of U. P. Act III of 1947 (hereinafter called the old Act) for permission to file a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the shop No. 112. It was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 15-12-1964 and the revision filed against it also remained unsuccessful. 4. On 23-9-1971 Smt. Kastoori Devi and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 moved an application under section 3 of the old Act for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop on the ground that it was bona fide required for establishing Mangal Sen, opposite party No. 2, in iron and manure business. It was alleged that Lala Mukund Lai used to carry on business of timber and bamboo etc. and after his death it is being looked after by Ramesh Chand, father of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 but the income from it is so meagre that it is difficult to maintain the whole family from it. Mangal Sen having become major wants to carry on separate business and as he along with his brothers will get the property after her death, she wants Mangal Sen to be established in the aforesaid business in her life time. 5. Smt. Kastoori Devi died before the application came up for hearing and her name was deleted from the application. Mangal Sen having become major wants to carry on separate business and as he along with his brothers will get the property after her death, she wants Mangal Sen to be established in the aforesaid business in her life time. 5. Smt. Kastoori Devi died before the application came up for hearing and her name was deleted from the application. On 15-7-1972 the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 came into force and on 26-7-1973 the said application was converted into one under section 21 of the Act. The prayer was also got amended in its light. 6. Jagdish Saran, the petitioner contested this application, inter alia, on the grounds that Smt. Kastoori Devi had not bona fide need for release of the shop, that Mukund Lal was possessed of vast property consisting of shops and go downs in an area of about 124 ft. x 24ft. adjacent to shop No. 112 and they devolved on her after his death and the need, if any could be easily met by it, that after her death the whole property has come to Mangal Sen and his brothers and they can easily meet their requirements out of it and they have no genuine need for shop No. 112 that Mangal Sen and his brothers had no right to prosecute the application for release as they are neither heirs nor the members of the family of Smt. Kastoori Devi and, lastly, that the application for release was moved with a view to enhance rent. 7. The Prescribed Authority did not go into the question of maintainability of the application. He gave no specific finding on the question of need of Mangal Sen for the disputed shop. He simply compared the relative hardships of the landlords and the tenant and held that the tenant has no alternative accommodation to carry on his business. His residential accommodation in Jawahar Nagar has no place in which Atta Chakki may be installed. The landlords on the other hand have shops and go downs in which Mangal Sen can carry on his business, if any. In his opinion greater hardship will be caused to the tenant if the application is allowed then is likely to be caused to the landlords by the rejection of the application. Therefore, the application was rejected on 16-11-72. 8. The landlords filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act. In his opinion greater hardship will be caused to the tenant if the application is allowed then is likely to be caused to the landlords by the rejection of the application. Therefore, the application was rejected on 16-11-72. 8. The landlords filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act. In that court the tenant moved an application 9-02 on 4-11-1974, alleging that shop No. 113 which is adjacent to the disputed shop and is owned by the same landlords, has been vacated by its tenant Musaddi Lal in November 1973 and the need of Mangal Sen, if any, can be easily fulfilled by it. Mangal Sen filed a counter affidavit on 4-3-1975 alleging that shop No. 113 was no doubt vacated by Musaddi Lai but it is not suitable for carrying on iron business. He, how- ever, offered it to the tenant in exchange of the disputed shop. On 30-5-1975 the tenant filed an affidavit alleging that Ata Chakki cannot be run in shop No. 113 as it is much too small for this purpose. As shop No. 113 was regarded to be not maintainable by both the parties for their respective requirements, the learned second Additional District Judge, Meerut, ignored its availability to either party. 9. In his affidavit dated 7-3-1975 Mangal Sen, opposite party No. 2 had also pleaded that Jagdish Saran petitioner is a tenant of shop Nos. 8 and 9 situate in Shankerganj Garh Muktashwar Road, Hapur, in which his brother Ratish Mohan was running an Ata Chakki According to him, Jagdish Saran can conveniently carry on his business in that shop. Jagdish Saran denied it and gave out that Ratish Mohan was tenant of that shop and he had no concern with it. The landlords filed certain papers before the appellate court and the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner and Ratish Mohan both were tenants of these shops and they were easily available to the petitioner for carrying one flour mill. He further held that the landlords need for the disputed shop was bona fide and greater hardship would be caused to them by the rejection of their application than was likely to be caused to the tenant if the application was allowed. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and shop Mo. He further held that the landlords need for the disputed shop was bona fide and greater hardship would be caused to them by the rejection of their application than was likely to be caused to the tenant if the application was allowed. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and shop Mo. 112 was released on the condition that two years' rent was deposited by the landlords within one month from the date of the order, failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed. Hence this petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed three main points. His first contention is that the application for release was moved on 20-9-1971 when Smt. Kastoori Devi alone was the owner of the disputed shop on the basis of the will She had no right to have it released for the benefit of Mangal Sen, opposite party no. 2 who was neither her heir nor a member of her family. It is also urged that after the death of Smt. Kastoori Devi, the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 had no right to prosecute that application because they could not be substituted in her place under section 34 (4) of the Act. I find absolutely no substance in this contention because the application by Smt, Kastoori Devi and opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 was moved on 20-9-1971 under Section 3 of the old Act for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner. According to the recitals made in the will, Ramesh Chandra, father of opposite parties nos. 2 to 5, used to live with the husband of Smt. Kastoori Devi. He was brought up and his marriage was arranged by Mukund Lal. After his death Ramesh Chandra started managing the property and the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 were living with Smt. Kastoori Devi. Therefore, Smt. Kastoori Devi could very well apply for permission under section 3 of the old Act for the benefit of opposite parties no. 2 to 5 and more so when the property was to devolve on them after her death under the will. 11. Smt. Kastoori Devi died before the new Act came into force and the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 who were already arrayed as applicants, continued to press it. After her death the property devolved on them under the will and they were competent to press it. 11. Smt. Kastoori Devi died before the new Act came into force and the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 who were already arrayed as applicants, continued to press it. After her death the property devolved on them under the will and they were competent to press it. Name of Smt. Kastoori Devi was deleted from the application. Section 34(4) of the new Act did not come into play as there was no application for substitution of heirs of Smt. Kastoori Devi nor opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 were at any stage substituted in her place. Since they are owners of this shop under the will and the application under section 3 was made for the requirement of Mangal Sen, opposite party no. 2 the opposite parties no. 2 to 5 were competent to press the application and the objection has no force. 12. The learned District Judge, however, committed manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record by not considering two questions at all. In the first place, the landlords had become owner of a number of shops including shop no. 113 and godowns situate close to shop no. 112 Kabari business is said to be carried on in these go downs which is managed by the father of opposite parties nos. 2 to 5. Shop no. 113 which is contiguous to the disputed shop has recently been vacated by one tenant. The learned District Judge has nowhere considered whether the accommodation already in possession of the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 is sufficient to meet the requirement of Mangal Sen. Secondly, he did not properly consider the question whether the tenant has got any alternative accommodation to which he may shift his Atta Chakki. According to the landlords, shop nos. 8 and 9 situate in Shankerganj Garh Road, Hapur, are in the tenancy of Jagdish saran in which his own brother Ratish Mohan is running an Atta Chakki and he can conveniently join with him. The petitioner on the other hand gives out that this shop was not available to him and he bad no concern with it. In this court he has filed affidavit to the effect that the said shop has been surrendered by Raitsh Mohan in favour of its landlord and it cannot be said to be available to him. The petitioner on the other hand gives out that this shop was not available to him and he bad no concern with it. In this court he has filed affidavit to the effect that the said shop has been surrendered by Raitsh Mohan in favour of its landlord and it cannot be said to be available to him. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly considered by the learned District Judge. His judgment cannot, therefore, be upheld. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs on parties and the order dated 17-2-1977 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Meerut is quashed. He is directed to dispose of the appeal afresh according to law keeping in mind the observations above.