JUDGMENT K C. Agrawal, J. :- This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the III Additional District Judge Meerut dated 7-10-1977 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 22 of the U.P. Act X III of 1972. The dispute in respect of a shop situate in Gandhi Bazar, Pilakhwa, District Ghaziabad. This had been let out to the petitioner in 1965. The petitioner was running his General Merchandise business therein. An application was filed by the respondent No 3 under section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1972 for permission to evict the petitioner. During pendency of this application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 came into force, consequently the said application was converted into one under section 21. The application was filed with the allegation that respondent No. 3 had a big family and that one of his sons and grand-sons were unemployed and that they were required to be settled in some business. The petitioner denied that the house in dispute was required by respondent No. 3 for occupation by himself. He alleged that the son and grandson of the respondent 3 were already employed as they were doing cloth business in a shop adjacent to the shop in dispute. 2. Both the parties filed affidavits in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority held that need of the respondent 3 was genuine. It appears that he did not record any finding on the controversy as to whether the petitioner's need was greater than that of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner took the matter in appeal to the learned District Judge. The appeal was transferred to the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Meerut, who dismissed the same by the impugned order. 3. The first contention raised by counsel for the petitioner was that the genuineness of the need on which the application was made by respondent was also challenged by the petitioner and that in support of his case, that the son and grandson of respondent 3 were carrying on business in a shop adjacent to the disputed one, was tried to be proved from the affidavits filed on his behalf, but the learned District Judge, by not referring the said evidence, committed a mistake. During pendency of the application filed under Section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947, a local inspection was made by the Prescribed Authority in the presence of the parties. At the time the petitioner did not point to him the shop in which the 'son and grandson of respondent 3 were doing business of selling cloth. The learned Judge referred to the said fact and also evidence of the parties and found that need of respondent 3 was genuine. It is true that when he did not make specific mention of the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner but it would be apparent from the judgment that he had considered the same while deciding the appeal. The finding of the learned Additional District Judge about genuine need of the premises by respondent 3 cannot be set aside on this ground as it is a finding of fact and this Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has no power to set aside the same. 4. The second argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that while holding that the petitioner had another shop available to him for shifting his business the learned District Judge as well as the Prescribed Authority did not refer to Rule 16(2) of the Rules framed under the Act which was necessary to be done in order to decide as to which one of the two parties would suffer greater hardship. Rule 16(2) (b) makes it clear 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. It cannot be denied that the petitioner had another shop situated at a distance of about 70 yards from the one in dispute. Under the proviso to section 21 of the Act, it is necessary for the landlord as well as the tenant to adduce and bring evidence before the Authority concerned for proving their cases of greater hardship. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to that effect. It has come on the record that the alternative shop which is available to the petitioner is in his possession and that be is doing general merchandise business therein. In the shop in dispute as well he was doing the same business. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to that effect. It has come on the record that the alternative shop which is available to the petitioner is in his possession and that be is doing general merchandise business therein. In the shop in dispute as well he was doing the same business. There appears to be no difficulty in his shifting the business of general merchandise from the shop in dispute to one which was in occupation of the petitioner. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is granted three month's time to vacate premises.