ORDER A N. Verma, J. - This petition by a tenant is directed against an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Mainpuri dated 24.1 1.1979 allowing an appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby the application of respondent No. 3 filed under Section 21(l)(a) of U.P. Act No. X III of 1972 had been rejected. 2. These are the relevant facts : The petitioner is and has been a tenant of the accommodation in dispute on a monthly rental of Rs. 10/- for the last forty-six years. The respondent No. 2 is its owner and landlord. The accommodation in dispute is a commercial accommodation in which the petitioner is carrying on the business of repairing and hiring gas lanterns for marriage purposes. The said respondent purchased the accommodation in dispute from its previous owner in the year 1974. Immediately after the purchase, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and was required for being demolished and reconstructed. This application was made under Section 21(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. The application was rejected. 3. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 made a second application under Section 21(1)(a) of the said Act on the assertion that he was a dental surgeon. He was somehow carrying on his dental clinic in an enclosed verandah measuring 12 feet by 9 feet. This accommodation was unsuitable and inadequate for enabling the said respondent to run his clinic as a dental surgeon as well as to manufacture imitation teeth. Besides the said enclosed verandah was also situate in an inhygienic place being surrounded by latrines. The petitioner, it was asserted, had plenty accommodation available and belonging to him in which he could easily shift his business. 4. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the landlord dad ample accommodation available to him. His father Bhagwan Chandra Mehra had huge accommodation, vacant and available to him adjoining the enclosed verandah where the said landlord was carrying on his dental business. Besides, the landlord had other buildings owned by him in the same town, where he could easily carry on his profession. As for himself. it was asserted that the tenant had no other accommodation available to him. Besides, the landlord had other buildings owned by him in the same town, where he could easily carry on his profession. As for himself. it was asserted that the tenant had no other accommodation available to him. He had a large family consisting of several sons and daughters. The income from the business being run by the tenant in the shop in dispute was the only source of livelihood for the family. He would, therefore, suffer irreparable loss. The tenant had been in occupation of the shop for more than forty- three years during which he had earned considerable goodwill, and that his business would, therefore, be ruined if the tenant was thrown out from the shop in dispute. 5. The Prescribed Authority held that while it was true that the accommodation-the enclosed verandah-in which the landlord was currently running his clinic was insufficient for the needs of the landlord and that, there fore, the landlord did bona fide require additional accommodation, his needs would be amply satisfied if the landlord occupied a room measuring 12 feet by 20 feet just adjoining the said enclosed verandah towards west which belonged to the landlords father but was not being used by him. On the issue of comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority held that considering the circumstances of the tenant, and the length of the tenancy, as between the landlord and the tenant, it is the latter who would suffer more than the landlord. In view of this finding, the application of the landlord was rejected. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the landlord appealed. The appellate court has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the application of the landlord. The appellate court disagreed with the Prescribed Authority as regards the availability of the room referred to above i.e. the room which is behind the enclosed verandah. It has held that the said room is being used by Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra, the father of the landlord for operations. On the question of comparative hardship also the appellate court disagreed with the Prescribed Authority and held that the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant. 7. The first point urged in support of the petition by the learned counsel was that the aforesaid room was being used by Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra as some sort of an operation theatre is vitiated by manifest errors. 7. The first point urged in support of the petition by the learned counsel was that the aforesaid room was being used by Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra as some sort of an operation theatre is vitiated by manifest errors. The errors pointed out were : (a) Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra did not possess any certificate saying that he was qualified to perform operations. The certificate which has been referred to in the judgment of the appellate court was that granted to Sri Purshottam Chandra Mehra, the brother of the landlord, by the National Homeopathic College, Lucknow. The appellate court misread the record in assuming that the certificate was in respect of Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra; (b) The finding was wholly conjectural and was not based on any positive evidence on the record indicating that Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra was performing operations in the said room. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, namely, the availability of the room just behind the enclosed verandah, I am clearly of the view that both the aforesaid grounds upon which the correctness of the finding was assailed by the petitioner are well-founded. Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that the certificate referred to in the judgment of the appellate court related to Sri Purshottam Chandra Mehra and not to Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra. The appellate court, therefore, committed a patent error of law in making the following observations : "Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra is qualified Homeopath doctor. His medical certificate shows that he passed the course and received the training in surgery and gynaecology." 9. Counsel for the respondent, however, urged that even if the certificate related to Purshottam Chandra Mehra, the ultimate conclusion of the appellate court would still have been the same as Sri Purshottam-Chandra Mehra was also practising with Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra. It was contended that it made no difference whether the room was being used for operation by Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra of Sri Purshottam Chandra Mehra. The net result is the same. I cannot agree. The appellate court had proceeded on the premises that the aforesaid room was being used by Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra for performing operations there. In this finding, the appellate court has taken into account the certificate which admittedly did not pertain to Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra. The net result is the same. I cannot agree. The appellate court had proceeded on the premises that the aforesaid room was being used by Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra for performing operations there. In this finding, the appellate court has taken into account the certificate which admittedly did not pertain to Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this court cannot substitute its finding for that of the appellate court. It will be for the appellate court to consider the argument raised on behalf of the respondent. 10. The second ground upon which the aforesaid finding has been assailed is equally sustainable. The appellate court has undoubtedly con- jectured that Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra must he using that room for operations. The appellate court has observed thus : "Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra is receiving about one hundred patients per day at his clinic. Obviously, he is a renowned homeopath. Thus, the patients, both sale and female, suffering from ulcers, gonnorhea, breast complaints etcetra should be coming to Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra for treatment and Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra would be examining"and treating them in this separate room behind the verandah and also operating the patients for draining out pus, etcetra." 11. Apart from the fact that the finding is based wholly on conjectures the comments quoted above are obviously founded upon the erroneous supposition that Dr. Bhagwan Chandra Mehra holds a certificate in surgery. Besides, whether the room in question is being used for operation has to be decided on the positive evidence on record of that fact and not on conjectures and surmises. 12. The finding of the appellate court on the question of availability of the room behind the enclosed verandah has, therefore, to be set aside on both the grounds mentioned above for a reconsideration. The appellate court should consider the question afresh in the light of the evidence on record. 13. Counsel for the petitioner also assailed the finding of the appellate court on point No. 2 i.e. on the question of comparative hardship. He submitted that the appellate court was not justified in assuming that the petitioner had not averred that he had offered to procure an alternative accommodation, but failed. He drew my attention to the written statement as well as the statement on oath of the petitioner. He submitted that the appellate court was not justified in assuming that the petitioner had not averred that he had offered to procure an alternative accommodation, but failed. He drew my attention to the written statement as well as the statement on oath of the petitioner. I have perused the written statement as well as the statement of the petitioner and I find that the learned District Judge cannot be said to be wrong in observing that the petitioner has not stated that he had made any effort to get an alternative accommodation allotted in his favour after receipt of notice of the landlord dated 26.11.1976. Neither the written statement, nor the statement on oath of the petitioner contains that averment. That the fact that the tenant had made no such efforts was relevant to the cotroversy is fully supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Begu Begum's case, 1979(1) RCJ 344 , The finding of the appellate court, therefore, that on comparison for likely hardship, it would be found that the landlord would suffer more than the tenant, cannot be said to be vitiated except for the errors committed by the appellate court in the determination of the question whether or not the room behind the enclosed verandah was available to the landlord. It is obvious that a proper determination of this question, namely, the availability of the said room, was essential for the decision of the question of comparative hardship. If the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the said room is in fact not available to the landlord on the findings recorded by the appellate court, the landlord would clearly be entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant. 14. I must now refer to the offer made by the respondent landlord in the counter-affidavit filed in this Court. In paragraph 13 of the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord, a categorial averment has been made that the accommodation which the landlord was at present is using, namely, the enclosed verandah his clinic may be given to the petitioner as an alternative accommodation. As this offer was not made before the courts below, it would be appropriate to leave this offer to be considered by the appellate court with a view to finding out whether the said accommodation offered by the landlord would not be a reasonable alternative for the tenant. As this offer was not made before the courts below, it would be appropriate to leave this offer to be considered by the appellate court with a view to finding out whether the said accommodation offered by the landlord would not be a reasonable alternative for the tenant. This question would be relevant having regard to the provisions of Rule 16(2)(b) of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. The appellate court will consider this offer and pass suitable orders in respect thereof, having regard to Rule 16(2)(b). 15. Before closing, I may add that the finding recorded by both the courts below that the landlord bona fide requires some additional accommodation and that the enclosed verandah where he is at present running his clinic is not sufficient, was not demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be wrong. The said finding is affirmed. 16. In view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge Mainpuri dated 24.11.1979 is quashed. The case remanded to the learned District Judge Mainpuri who may dispose it of either himself or might transfer it to any other learned Judge having jurisdiction to hear the appeal in question, according to law, having regard to the observations made in the judgment. The court will try and dispose of the appeal expeditiously, if possible within a period of three months from today. 17. The parties shall bear their own costs of this petition.