JUDGMENT : Murlidhar, J. This is a tenant's petition under Article 226 arising out of proceedings u/s 21 Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of a shop situate on Zero Road, Allahabad. 2. The brief relevant facts are these: The building in which the disputed shop is situate belongs to three brothers. On the ground floor abutting the road are four shops two of which are in possession of one brother Munni Lal who is running a photograph studio in the name of Rama Studio. One shop has been in possession of Harihar Prasad the landlord relevant to this case who formerly had a general merchandise shop in it in the style of Manjul Stores. The fourth or the disputed shop has been in Petitioner's possession as a tenant and he has been carrying on a business of book binding in it. The landlord's claim for this shop was based on the grounds that Harihar Prasad had obtained diploma in photography from Allahabad University, that had closed the general merchandise shop and wanted to start a photography business for which at least two rooms are required. It was also alleged that the tenant was well off and had built a commodious house near Ram Bagh Railway Station and also owned a plot of land. The landlord's brother was said to have a house in Hatia Bahadurganj also. The landlord's claim was that the three brothers had in 1956 made a private partition of the properties under which the disputed shop had fallen to the share of Harihar Prasad. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application per its order dated 21-4-1978. The District Judge as the appellate authority per his order, dated 29-1-1979 confirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority. These are the orders impugned by this writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried to argue that Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to only the buildings which had been constructed after the commencement of the Act. This was on the basis of certain observations of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240 of 1979, Ratan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi (since reported in 1979 AWC 752 ). A transcript of the judgment was shown to me. This was on the basis of certain observations of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240 of 1979, Ratan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi (since reported in 1979 AWC 752 ). A transcript of the judgment was shown to me. The SLP was in the end dismissed, but apart from this with great respect the observations of the Supreme Court are made with regard to the provision relating to exemption of ten year old buildings from the operation of the Act and at the most mean that only buildings completed after the commencement of the Act No. XIII of 1972 would be exempted from the operation of the Act under that provision. The suggested interpretation of these observations is wholly untenable. 4. The only other argument was that the authorities below have not properly compared the hardships as required by Proviso 4 to Section 21(1)(a). It was pointed out in this connection that Rule 16(d) which has been referred to by the Prescribed Authority will not apply because in terms this rule can only apply where a son or daughter of the landlord or a male lineal descendant has completed technical education after the premises were let out and not where the landlord himself has completed such technical education. It is true that in terms Rule 16(2) (d) will not cover the case of a landlord himself completing technical education. This, however, can not be a bar to the landlord's need on account of such education being considered under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a). Rule 16(2) is only a rule of guidance. It merely says that the authority shall have also regard to such facts as the following and as has been well said it is a guide not a fetter. Therefore a ground not covered by Rule 16(2) if relevant can legitimately be taken into account by the authorities while considering the application for release for business purposes u/s 21(1)(a). The consideration of landlord's need on account of his technical diploma cannot therefore be regarded as illegal. 5. The learned Counsel also stressed that the appellate authority has itself observed "if the tenant had no alternative accommodation in which he could shift his business then certainly the question of release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord would not have arisen". 5. The learned Counsel also stressed that the appellate authority has itself observed "if the tenant had no alternative accommodation in which he could shift his business then certainly the question of release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord would not have arisen". It is contended that the appellate authority has misdirected itself in regarding the Ram Bagh house and the Bahadurganj house belonging to Harihar Prasad's brother as suitable alternative accommodation because allegedly residential accommodation cannot be considered suitable alternative accommodation for business premises. The question is really one of fact as to whether the business of book binding could be shifted by the tenant to some other place and whether eviction would result in utter ruin due to closure of business. It was quite legitimate for the authority to find that the nature of business was such that it could without appreciable detriment be shifted to Ram Bagh house abutting the main road. The brother's house in Hatia Bahadurganj was also considered as an alternative suitable place because the brother was found to have been joint in the book binding business with the Petitioner. Considering the circumstances the finding that the test, of comparative hardship works in favour of the Petitioner is a finding of fact not vitiated by any improper application of law and not suffering from any infirmity which can be taken cognizance of in these proceedings. 6. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay order, dt. 2-2-1979 is vacated but three month's time is allowed for vacating the premises after which the order of eviction shall be enforcible. No order as to costs.