JUDGMENT K. N. Seth, J. :- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of a proceeding under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The opposite parties (landlords) made an application for release of the premises mainly on the ground that they needed it for residential as well as business purpose. It was alleged that the accommodation available to them for residential purposes was not sufficient to accommodate the large number of persons in the family and that the premises in question was needed also for setting some of the members of the family in business. With regard to the hotel business carried on by the tenants-petitioners) it was alleged that the hotel business was a dwindling one and it could be carried on in the adjoining premises no. 84. K.P. Kakkar Road, which was also under the tenancy of the petitioners. It was further asserted that the hotel business could be shifted to the houses situate in Mohatshimganj which was left behind by Shri Shambhoo Nath, father of petitioners no. 3 to 7. 2. The petitioners contested the application and denied the allegation that the premises in question was bona fide needed for residential or business purposes of the landlords. It was further contended that the Hotel business was not a dwindling business but, on the other hand, it had acquired good reputation and good will. It was asserted that the hotel business could not possibly be run in premises no. 84, K. P. Kakkar Road, Allahabad or shifted to the house at Mohatshimganj which was situate in a lane and was in occupation of tenants for the last over twenty five years and was even otherwise not at all suitable for hotel business. It was asserted that the real purposes in moving the application for release of the building was to sell it in a vacant condition to secure a higher price or to pressurise the tenants to pay a higher rent. In this connection it was pointed out that proceeding for eviction was earlier initiated under section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947, but the matter was compromised in March 1964 when the tenants agreed to enhance the rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 225/-, per month. In this connection it was pointed out that proceeding for eviction was earlier initiated under section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947, but the matter was compromised in March 1964 when the tenants agreed to enhance the rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 225/-, per month. In 1967 the landlords filed a suit in the court of the Munsif West, Allahabad, for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of sub-letting and material alteration which was dismissed by the trial court and that decree was upheld in appeal in 1973. 3. Sri R.K. Agarwal, petitioner no. 8, filed a separate objection denying the need of the landlords. He claimed that he was in possession of one of the rooms on the ground floor under an allotment order dated 21.9.1963 and was carrying on the business of book-sellers under the name and style of "Kitab Mahal Distributor" and had acquired a good will and would be totally ruined in the event of his eviction from the said shop. 4. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on the finding that the alleged need of the appellants was not at all bona fide and the tenants, if evicted, were most likely to suffer irreparable loss. On appeal the learned II Additional District Judge by his order dated 17.10.1977 allowed the application for release of the premises. He directed the landlords to pay two years' rent for the premises in dispute to the tenants as compensation. The tenants were directed to vacate the premises within two months from the date of the order. The petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the aforesaid order of the learned Judge. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioners no. 1 to 7 are tenants of the premises since 1939 and petitioner no. 8 is a tenant of a room on the ground floor under an order of allotment since 1963. The petitioners, except petitioner no. 8 carry on hotel business undertake name and style of "Grand Hotel" In the premises in dispute and premises no. 84 K.P. Kakkar Road, which is an adjoining building. The building in dispute bearing no. 86 K. P. Kakkar Road has fourteen room-four on the ground floor, eight on the first floor and two on the second floor. 8 carry on hotel business undertake name and style of "Grand Hotel" In the premises in dispute and premises no. 84 K.P. Kakkar Road, which is an adjoining building. The building in dispute bearing no. 86 K. P. Kakkar Road has fourteen room-four on the ground floor, eight on the first floor and two on the second floor. The accommodation in premises no 84 K. P. Kakkar Road consists of three inter-connected rooms on the first floor and two Kothries on the second floor. 6. The learned Judge accepted the claim put forward by the landlords that the disputed accommodation was bona fide needed by them for their personal use as the accommodation available to them in the city was insufficient to accommodate all the members of the family. It may be that the accommodation available to the landlords was not sufficient for their need. the question still remains whether the accommodation in question was bona fide needed by the landlords for their own use or it was for some other purpose. The stand taken by the petitioners was that in fact the landlords wanted the release of the premises in question with a view to sell it in a vacant condition in order to secure a higher price. In support of this plea they brought on record two advertisements for sale which were got published by the landlords in February 1974 in the daily "Bharat" and the "Northern India Patrika". They further brought on record an application 9.4.1974 made by the landlords to the Collector, Allahabad, for permission to sell the premises in question. In this application it was stated that the owners wanted to sell the house in question because it was not fetching good rent and what even was realised was spent towards repairs and taxes. The Collector by his order dated 7.12.1974 granted the requisite permission. That order has also been brought on record. The case set up by the landlords was that the advertisements in question were got made only with a view to ascertain the value of the property to effect exchange of various properties between the co-owners in terms of the exchange deed executed by them. That order has also been brought on record. The case set up by the landlords was that the advertisements in question were got made only with a view to ascertain the value of the property to effect exchange of various properties between the co-owners in terms of the exchange deed executed by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the appellate authority did not apply his mind at all to the fact that the landlords, apart from advertising sale of the property, applied to the Collector for permission to sell the property and the further fact that the requisite permission was granted by the Collector and consequently his finding that the house was bona fide needed by the landlords for their personal use was vitiated on account of non-consideration of relevant facts and was open to challenge. I find considerable merit in this contention. if the landlords wanted an evaluation of the property that could easily have been done by a valuer. The advertisements of the property for sale could not have been for the purposes of assessing its value. The real intention is borne out by the fact that an application was made for permission to sell it. Affidavits were filed in support of the allegation that there was a genuine necessity for selling the property and on that basis the Collector granted the requisite permission. It is common knowledge that higher price is offered for a property of which vacant possession can be delivered to the purchaser and it was with a view to secure higher price that the aforesaid steps were taken for sale of the property. The real intention being to sell the property, the application for release of the accommodation was also made with that end in view. The finding recorded by the learned Judge after ignoring the vital facts mentioned above cannot be sustained. I am not at all satisfied that the need put forward by the landlords was really bona fide or genuine. 7. While considering the comparative needs of the parties the learned Judge again committed a manifest error in accepting the case put forward by the landlords that the hotel business carried on by the petitioners was a dwindling business and that they would not suffer any loss if the business was confined to the adjoining premises No. 84, K. P. Kakkar Road. One of the factors which weighed with the learned Judge in coming to that conclusion was that a major portion of the building had been sublet by the petitioners. This factor appears to have been assumed by the learned Judge without any basis at all. It is no body's case that a major portion of the building had been sub-let by the petitioners. Out of the entire building only one room on the ground floor had been let out to petitioner No. 8 and that was done in 1963 under a valid order of allotment under U.P. Act No. III of 1947. Learned counsel for the respondents frankly admitted that except for that room on the ground floor nothing else had been sub-let by the petitioner and the observation of the learned Judge was without any evidence to that effect. The main ground on which the learned Judge accepted the contention of the landlords that the hotel business carried on by the petitioners was a dwindling one was that the tenants failed to file the visitors' register and account of the hotel business in spite of a direction to that effect and on account of this conduct of the tenants it could be conveniently presumed that the allegation of the landlords that the hotel business was in a dwindling position was quite correct. The material on record discloses an entirely different picture. On 5.3.1976 the landlords made an application to the prescribed Authority praying that the tenants be directed to produce employees register, stock register, register of persons staying in the hotel and stock of day to day consumption of wine, licence of Bar and such allied papers (annexure C. A. 4). That application was rejected by the prescribed authority by his order dated 13.4.1976 and the landlords were directed to file secondary evidence, if any. Learned counsel for the respondents could not lay his hands to any Order passed by the prescribed Authority or by the learned Judge directing the tenants to produce the books of account and other registers as desired by the landlords. The learned Judge committed a serious error in assuming without any basis that the tenants had failed to produce the relevant account books, registers etc. inspite of a direction to that effect. The learned Judge committed a serious error in assuming without any basis that the tenants had failed to produce the relevant account books, registers etc. inspite of a direction to that effect. It was not at all open to the learned Judge to draw any presumption against the tenants for non-compliance with a direction which did not in fact exist. On this point also learned counsel frankly admitted that he was not in a position to substantiate the observation made by the learned Judge. 8. Apart from assuming facts which did not exist, learned Judge took into consideration certain irrelevant facts in coming to the conclusion that the hotel business was a dwindling one. He took into consideration the fact that the Bar licence had been cancelled, the D.C. electric supply, was disconnected and so was the telephone. In the application for release only a general allegation was made that the hotel business was a dwindling one. No material had been placed in support of that contention. The circumstances mentioned above came into existence subsequently. The case set up by the petitioners on the cancellation Bar licence was that it was in fact surrendered on 1.4.1976 because the licence fee was enhanced exorbitantly as a result of change in Government policy. The fee was enhanced by Rs. 6,000/- per annum, being fixed fee over and above the already being paid by the petitioners. Moreover, because of the fact that several shops inside the city had been licenced for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor, where liquor was cheaper, the Bar licence held by the petitioners had become unprofitable. As regards the allegation regarding disconnection of electric connection it was pointed out that the premises in question initially had a D. C. connection whereas at the adjoining premises no. 84 K.P. Kakkar Road the Petitioners had A.C. connection. The A.C. connection was subsequently extended to the premises in question. Moreover, the D.C. connection had become useless as fans and electrical appliances were available mainly for A.C. connection. As regards the disconnection of the telephone it was pointed that since it was found that a telephone connection was not necessary for the business it was got disconnected. In my opinion the learned Judge was not justified in drawing an inference from these facts that the hotel business was a dwindling one. As regards the disconnection of the telephone it was pointed that since it was found that a telephone connection was not necessary for the business it was got disconnected. In my opinion the learned Judge was not justified in drawing an inference from these facts that the hotel business was a dwindling one. It is not disputed that the licence fee for the Bar licence had been enhanced considerably and if' in that situation the petitioners did not find it profitable to maintain a Bar, their decision to surrender the licence could not be indicative of a dwindling hotel business. It is no body's case that the premises in question is without electric connection. Merely because the petitioners decided to use only A.C. power supply and allowed the D C. supply to the disconnected, it could not possibly lead to the inference drawn by the learned Judge. Similarly the fact that the telephone was got disconnected was not a relevant factor to be taken into consideration. The Grand Hotel is not a Five Star or Three star hotel of frequented by well to do and high placed customers. The non-payment of the telephone bill, which led to the disconnection, may not have been due to inability of the petitioners to pay the amount but may have been due to negligence or because they had decided not to keep a telephone connection which had been found to be unnecessary for the business. 9. In considering the question of hardship that would necessarily be caused to the tenants in case the property was released in favour of the landlords, the learned Judge took into consideration the fact that premises no. 84, K.P. Kakkar Road was available to them and that would be sufficient to carry on the hotel business. Here again the learned Judge has taken a fallacious view which cannot possibly be approved. It is not disputed that the accommodation in premises no. 84, K.P. Kakkar Road consists of only three interconnected rooms on the first floor and two Kotharies on the second floor. No hotel business can possibly be carried on in such an accommodation. After satisfying the need of an office room, a kitchen, a store room and such other basic requirements no space would be left to accommodate the customers. In the building in dispute the petitioner has fourteen rooms under their tenancy. No hotel business can possibly be carried on in such an accommodation. After satisfying the need of an office room, a kitchen, a store room and such other basic requirements no space would be left to accommodate the customers. In the building in dispute the petitioner has fourteen rooms under their tenancy. Leaving aside the accommodation in the ground floor, the rest was sufficient to run a modest hotel business but from premises no. 84, K. P. Kakkar Road the business could not be run even on an extremely modest scale. The view of the learned Judge that the petitioners could conveniently shift their hotel business to premises no. 84, K.P. Kakkar Road and no hardship or loss is likely to be caused to them appears to be perverse and untenable. 10. In the result this petition is allowed. The order of the learned II Additional District Judge dated 17.10.1977 is quashed. The application of the respondents for release of the premises in question stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.