JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J. :- By this petition under article 226 of the constitution, the-petitioners challenge the validity of an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, dated 17.8. 1977, and also that of the Prescribed Authority dated 4.4.1977. 2. One Smt. Shamim Ara Begam, who was the wife of respondent no. 3, filed an application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on 6.1.1976. She died on 21.8.1976. The need specified in the application was for the respondent no 3. The same was that the said respondent required the premises for occupation for the purposes of having his chambers and residence. After the death of Smt. Shamim Ara Begam, an application for substitution was tiled by respondent nos. 3 and 4. The application was not contested. Consequently, the same was allowed and the aforesaid two persons were brought on record as heirs of the deceased Smt. Shamim Ara Begam. 3. The respondents nos. 3 and 4 filed evidence in support of their case taken in the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 4. The application was contested by Respondent No. 5. He asserted that he was not the tenant of the premises but the tenant was Ekka Biri Stores. It was, thereupon, that Ekka Biri stores was impleaded as a party. Thereafter, an application was filed stating that Ekka Biri stores no longer existed, and that the same had been taken by Fine Biri Stores'. Then the petitioner no. 1 was impleaded as a party. The other person who was arrayed was Saeed Khan, petitioner no. 2. 5. For as the petitioner no. 2 was concerned, the case of respondents no. 3 and 4 was that the former was the servant of the petitioner no. 1. 6. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. 7. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of respondents nos. 3 and 4 was genuine, and further found that they would suffer greater hardship in case the application is rejected. But, as in his opinion the need of the said respondents would be satisfied by a part of the accommodation, the release order was confined to the portion of the ground floor and the landlord was directed to provide a stair case to respondent no. 5 for enabling him or his agents and servants to use the accommodation on the first floor. 5 for enabling him or his agents and servants to use the accommodation on the first floor. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, an appeal was filed before the District Judge, which was dismissed. Hence, this petition. 8. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents nos. 3 and 4 that the writ petition filed at the instance of the petitioners nos. 1 and 2 was not maintainable. He urged that the premises was let out to respondent no. 5 and that the finding given by the court below was that the said respondent was the tenant. Refusing the said argument of the learned counsel for the respondents nos. 3 and 4, the petitioners' counsel contended that the respondent no. 3 himself accepted the rent from the petitioner no. 1 was the tenant. This question was raised before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenant of the premises was respondent no. 5, and that be was doing business in the premises dispute, firstly in the name of 'Ekka Biri Stores' and thereafter in the name of Fine Bidi Stores. This argument had been advanced from the petitioners' side another plea which will be dealt with by me subsequently. It would suffice to mention that Fine Bidi Stores was the concern of respondent no. 5, and the petition filed by the petitioner no. 1, cannot be dismissed on that ground. The respondent no. 5 was, admittedly, doing business in the name of petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, for all practical purposes, the respondent no. 5 should be deemed to be a party through petitioner no. 1. 9. Coming to the merits, the first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that as on the death of Smt. Shamim Ara Begam her mother, who was alive, was not impleaded the application ought to have been rejected. This point was not raised on behalf of the petitioner or respondent no. 5 before the Prescribed Authority. I am not prepared to accept this argument as the appropriate stage for taking this objection was before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners cannot take the respondents nos. 3 and 4 by surprise. 10. The second submission was that as rent had been accepted from Fine Bidi Stores, the petitioner no. 5 before the Prescribed Authority. I am not prepared to accept this argument as the appropriate stage for taking this objection was before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners cannot take the respondents nos. 3 and 4 by surprise. 10. The second submission was that as rent had been accepted from Fine Bidi Stores, the petitioner no. 1 was a tenant, and the Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Additional District Judge should have compared the hardships of the petitioners with that of respondents nos. 3 and 4. As already stated above, the respondent no. 5 was doing business in the name of Fine Bidi Stores. The Courts below not only considered the need of the respondent no. 5 but also compared it with that of respondents nos. 3 and 4. The appellate court found that respondent 5 had a number of building, where the business could be shifted. The consideration of the need of the respondent no. 5 was as good as that of the petitioner no 1. No separate consideration of the need of the petitioner no. 1 was required to be gone into. As on alternative accommodation was available to the respondent no. 5. Where the business of the petitioner no. 1 could be shifted, We courts below rightly held that they would not suffer any loss in case the application was allowed. Contrary to this, the respondent no. 3 stated that he was a practising lawyer and had no chamber. The need of respondent no. 3 was genuine and in case the premises on the ground floor would not have been made available to him, the hardship which would have been suffered by him would have been greater. 11. The last submission made was that the direction given by the court below about the construction of the staircase was contrary to the provisions of section 21. I am unable to accept this submission. Section 21 authorises a Prescribed Authority to release a portion of a building under the tenancy of a tenant or whole of it. This provision has been made for the benefit of tenants. In the instant case, it would appear that the Prescribed Authority was satisfied that the need of the respondent no. 3 would be fulfilled by releasing the ground floor and, therefore, he passed an order to that effect. This provision has been made for the benefit of tenants. In the instant case, it would appear that the Prescribed Authority was satisfied that the need of the respondent no. 3 would be fulfilled by releasing the ground floor and, therefore, he passed an order to that effect. As there was no separate passage for going to the upper storey, the Prescribed Authority could validly in exercise of the power under section 21 give a direction to that effect also. 12. The last submission made was that as the space on which construction of a staircase was directed to be made, was not convenient for the user of the said respondent 5, the direction was liable to be set aside. I am not inclined to set aside the order of the courts below on the ground suggested by the learned counsel. It was a matter for the Prescribed Authority to decide and not for the High Court. As there is no dispute that the respondent no 3 would construct a pucca staircase, I need not give any direction in this regard. 13. For these, reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.