JUDGMENT M. P. Saxena, J.:- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. One Muneshwar was the owner and landlord of shop no. 224 situate in Mohalla Kapoor Pur in the town of Ghazipur. Uma Shankar deceased was its tenant. This shop was purchased by Smt. Badami Devi, wife of Sukhu and as such, she became the landlord of Uma Shankar. She moved an application under section 21 (1) of the Act for release of the shop on the ground that it was in a dilapidated condition and she wanted to reconstruct it for settling her grandson in some business in it. that Uma Shankar did not require this shop and was possessed of alternative building for his need. 3. The application was contested by Uma Shankar on the grounds that the petitioner had no bond fide need for the shop, that he was carrying on his business and also living in the shop since long and had no alternative accommodation and so it could not be released. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings Smt. Badami Devi died and Dip Chand and Prem Chand opposite party Nos 3 and 4 were substituted in her place. Uma Shankar also died and in his place his widow Smt. Murti Devi was impleaded though petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 5 are also heirs as his daughters. 5. The Prescribed Authority come to the conclusion that the landlords are also owners of adjoining shop nos. 224/1, 224/2 and 224/3. These shops became in a dilapidated condition and the landlords got them vacated by the tenants. They have obtained sanction of the Municipal Board to reconstruct them as well as the shop in suit which is also in a dilapidated condition. The need of the landlords is genuine. Therefore, the application was allowed on the condition that the landlord shall give an undertaking before him within 15 days of the date of the order that they would accommodate the heirs of Uma Shankar in the newly constructed premises either on the same rent which was being paid by them or on enhanced rent by 25 per cent. Therefore, the application was allowed on the condition that the landlord shall give an undertaking before him within 15 days of the date of the order that they would accommodate the heirs of Uma Shankar in the newly constructed premises either on the same rent which was being paid by them or on enhanced rent by 25 per cent. It was further stated that if no such undertaking was given the release application shall stand rejected. This order was passed on 4.1.1917 and on 17.1.1977 the landlords gave an undertaking but not in the form required by the Prescribed Authority. They offered to accommodate the tenants in some new temporary structure in their compound according to the rent fixed by the Municipal Board, Ghazipur. 6. Both the landlords and the tenants remained dissatisfied with the order of the Prescribed Authority and filed appeals. Appeal No. 2 of 1971 was filed by the tenants while appeal No. 3 of 1977 was filed by the landlords. 7. The learned District Judge, Ghazipur came to the conclusion that the shop is in a dilapidated condition and is needed by the grand-son of Smt. Badami Devi for starting his business. He also compared the relative hardship of the landlords and the tenants and held that greater hardship would be caused to the landlords by rejection of their application than was likely to be caused to the tenants if the application was allowed. He also held that the tenants can get another accommodation on rent. The tenants' appeal was accordingly dismissed while the appeal of the landlords was allowed subject to the condition that they shall pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to the tenants. 8. The tenants have now come up to this court in writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The original application for release does not seem to have clearly stated whether it was moved under section 21 (1) (a) or (b) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority allowed it under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act on the ground that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and requires to be reconstructed. It is for this reason that he demanded undertaking from the landlords because no undertaking can be asked for in the case of release under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. It is for this reason that he demanded undertaking from the landlords because no undertaking can be asked for in the case of release under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. the learned District Judge also appears to have remained in suspense in as much as at one place he held that the shop is in a dilapidated condition and requires to be reconstructed and at another he observed that the need of the landlords and the relative hardship of the landlords and the tenants are to be considered. Without specifying whether the application allowed under clause (a) or (b) he allowed the release application. The building appears to have been held to be non-residential because the compensation to the tune of two years rent is awarded only in the case of non-residential building. In this court the learned counsel for the landlords opposite parties has fairly conceded that the application for release was not under clause (b) nor the release is sought on this ground. Therefore, the case is to be considered only from the point of view of section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. It is needless to say that while disposing of an application under this provision the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court are required to dispose of two important questions. Firstly; about the bona fide need of the landlord and secondly, whether rejection of the application will cause greater hardship to the landlord than is likely to be caused to the tenants if the application is allowed. In the instant case, the learned District Judge has not at all approached the case in correct perspective. According to the petitioners, the shop in dispute is being used by them for residence as well as for carrying on business. It was therefore, necessary for the learned lower authorities to decide as to what was the paramount purpose for which the property was being used. If the paramount purpose was residence, its release for running a shop by the grand-son of Smt. Badami Devi would not be permissible. 9. Another question which has been completely ignored by the learned lower authorities is whether the landlords need can be adequately met out of the new shops which are proposed to be constructed in place of shop Nos. 224/1, 224/2, and 224/3. 9. Another question which has been completely ignored by the learned lower authorities is whether the landlords need can be adequately met out of the new shops which are proposed to be constructed in place of shop Nos. 224/1, 224/2, and 224/3. A perusal of the learned District Judge's judgment will make it clear that the comparison of comparative hardship has not been properly done. All that he has said is that looking to the case from the point of view of IVth proviso added to section 21 (1) of the Act, the need of the landlords is greater than the need of the tenant. For all these reasons, the judgment of the learned District Judge suffers from manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record in as much as the relevant points were not taken into consideration. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs on parties and the order dated 20th of March 1977 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur is quashed. He is directed to dispose of the appeal of the tenants afresh according to law in the light of the observations made above. Petition allowed