JUDGMENT H. N. Seth, J. - This is landlord's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it arises out of proceedings under U. P. Act 13 of 1972. 2. There is a premises known as Padmini Newas Estate at Mussoorie. It consists of a main building having ten rooms, a cottage consisting of three bed rooms and three annexes. For quite some time, the petitioner had been running a lodging house in the main building of Padmini Newas. The cottage had been rented out to the Managing Director of the Hicks Thermometer Co. Ltd., 1. As the Managing Director of Hicks Thermometer Co. Ltd., vacated the cottage, the cottage was decided vacant and became open for allotment. On 28th June, 1977, respondent no. 3 Sri B.D. Sanwal made an application that the accommodation be allotted in his name. The petitioner also made an application dated 8th December, 1977 for release of the said cottage in his favour. Main ground taken in the release application was that the landlord, who was owner of Padmini Newas Estate, had his wife, mother and five children as members of his family. He was a lease-holder of a coal mine at Dhanbad which mine had been, after nationalisation, taken over by the Government and his business activity had come to an end. He wanted to use the said cottage also as a lodging house along with the main building which was being used as a lodging house. 3. While the application for allotment filed by respondent no. 2 and some others as also the application for release filed by the petitioner landlord, was still pending, the licence of the petitioner, to run a lodging house in the main building of Padmini Newas at Mussoorie, was cancelled some times in the month of January, 1979. Accordingly, on 25th January, 1979, the petitioner moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction officer Mussoorie, stating that he had, a few days before, received in formation that the lodging house licence for Padmini Newas cottage had been cancelled and, therefore, it had become necessary for him to amend the application for release filed by him. He, therefore, prayed that he may be allowed some time to make the necessary application for amending the release application. This application of the petitioner was rejected on the same day by the following order : "Heard. He, therefore, prayed that he may be allowed some time to make the necessary application for amending the release application. This application of the petitioner was rejected on the same day by the following order : "Heard. There does not appear to be any necessity of amendment of release application on the ground mentioned in the application, hence rejected." 4. The petitioner then moved another application on 9th February 1979 mentioning that as the licence to run a lodging house in Padmini Newas had been cancelled, the petitioner had earlier moved an application for permission to amend his release application which permission was not granted, accordingly he was filing the attached application (dated 8th February 1979) and prayed that he may be permitted to withdraw the earlier release application and that his request for release may be considered on the basis of the acts mentioned in the attached application. In the application dated 8th February 1979, filed along with the application dated 9th February 1979, the petitioner stated that his licence, to run the lodging house in the main building of Padmini Newas, had been cancelled on account of certain defects in the building. He was desirous of running a lodging house in the said portion after removing those defects. He wanted the Padmini Newas cottage (the accommodation in dispute) for the personal occupation by him and members of his family so that be may be able to supervise the running of the lodging house in the main building. The Rent Control and Eviction officer again rejected the application by passing the following order : "Heard counsel for the petitioner. When one release application is already pending, there is no ground to permit withdrawal of the same and permit fresh release application. The application is rejected. Let parties argue the case for which the date has been fixed. He then proceeded to hear the parties and by his order dated 16th February 1979 rejected the petitioner's request for release of the cottage and allotted the same to respondent no. 3 Sri B.D. Sanwal. 5. The application is rejected. Let parties argue the case for which the date has been fixed. He then proceeded to hear the parties and by his order dated 16th February 1979 rejected the petitioner's request for release of the cottage and allotted the same to respondent no. 3 Sri B.D. Sanwal. 5. A perusal of the order dated 16th February 1979 shows that the Rent Control and Eviction officer after reciting the acts and the circumstances in which the two release applications had been filed and the prayer for amending the first release application was rejected, observed that the material on the record clearly indicated that the petitioner had no business at Mussoorie (as his licence of running a lodging house stood cancelled). Accordingly his request for releasing the cottage for running a lodging house or personal residence did not appear to be bona fide. 6. The petitioner then went up in revision before the District Judge, Dehradun. The District Judge observed that to begin with the petitioner applied for release of the Padmini Newas cottage on the ground that he needed it for running a lodging house. Admittedly the petitioner did not require the accommodation for converting it into a lodging house. His claim was that now he required it for his own residence and residence of his family members. He pointed out that by implication petitioner's second release application filed on 9th February 1979 stood rejected when the Rent Control and Eviction officer declined to permit him to withdraw the earlier release application. The learned District Judge then dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner after making the following observations : "It may also be mentioned that the first release application shows that the landlord wanted to use both the buildings i.e. Padmini Newas main and Padmini Newas Cottage as lodging house. He did not acquire any building for his personal use or use of his family. There is no material on the record to show that his circumstances have changed since the date of his first application and hence now he requires the building in question for residential purposes. In the beginning he did not require the building for residential purposes. He did not want to stay for live in Mussoorie. He wanted to use both the buildings for starting a lodging house therein. He still wants to use the main building as a lodging house. In the beginning he did not require the building for residential purposes. He did not want to stay for live in Mussoorie. He wanted to use both the buildings for starting a lodging house therein. He still wants to use the main building as a lodging house. In the circumstances, the learned Rent Control and Eviction officer rightly rejected to move resh release application. It appears that when the petitioner realised that his application for release on the ground that he required the building for running a lodging house had no force, he moved the second release application simply to prolong the proceedings. Order. The revision is dismissed." 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. A perusal of the order dated 15th February 1979 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction officer which is the principal authority concerned with appraisement of acts and to assess whether the needs set out by the landlord for release of the accommodation is genuine for not, shows that he in effect held that in view of fact that the licence obtained by the petitioner for running a lodging house in the main building of Padmini Newas stood cancelled, the need of the landlord either for purposes of running a lodging house in the cottage for purposes of petitioner's residence could not be said to be bona fide. The Rent Control and Eviction officer completely ignored the fact that the petitioner had, in his application filed on 9th February 1979 clearly set out the case that his licence had been cancelled because of certain defects and that he was taking steps to remove those defects and to obtain fresh licence for running the lodging house. Unless the Rent Control and Eviction officer had reasons to believe that this assertion made in the application filed on 9th February 1979 was without any substance, he could not have rejected the pleas contained either in the first application or in the application made on 9th February 1979 on the ground that the petitioner had in fact no business at Mussoorie justifying release of the cottage on the grounds mentioned in either of the two applications. In my opinion, the action of the Rent Control and Eviction officer altogether ignoring the plea that the petitioner was taking steps to run the lodging house in Padmini Newas amounts to non-application of mind to the real controversy raised between the parties. 9. I find that when on 25th January, 1979 the petitioner moved an application that in view of cancellation of his licence for running a lodging house in Padmini Newas, he should be granted time to amend his release application, the Rent Control and Eviction officer rejected the same by observing that there did not appear to be any necessity of amendment of the release application on the ground mentioned in the application. It may be conceded that while dealing with an application for permission to amend an application, Rule 22 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 gives a discretion to the Rent Control and Eviction officer to allow or not to allow the amendment. However, it cannot be gainsaid that the said discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. It is significant to note that the Rent Control and Eviction officer rejected the application for time to seek amendment of the release application by observing that the amendment could not be granted on the ground mentioned in the application. He did not give any reason as to why he thought so. As after making the release application, petitioner's licence for running the lodging house in Padmini Newas had been cancelled, it became possible for the other side to urge that there was no question of his running such a lodging house in the cottage either and, therefore, his request for release deserved to be rejected. Indeed this is the very ground on which his request for release of Padmini cottage was held not to be valid. As the cancellation of petitioners licence to run the lodging house in Padmini Niwas took place after the release application had been filed, surely he was entitled to bring on record his case as to how despite cancellation of the licence his need to occupy the cottage still remained valid. As the cancellation of petitioners licence to run the lodging house in Padmini Niwas took place after the release application had been filed, surely he was entitled to bring on record his case as to how despite cancellation of the licence his need to occupy the cottage still remained valid. The petitioner could as he has in fact subsequently said, amend the release application and contend that even though his licence for running the lodging house in Padmini Newas had been cancelled, he was taking steps to get the same restored. Had the Rent Control and Eviction officer taken this fact into consideration he might or might not have, in the light of other circumstances of the case, held that the need of the petitioner for occupation of the cottage was genuine. The Act that the petitioner was taking steps to get his licence restored and that he expected to get it restored was material circumstance which he should have been permitted to bring on record by way of amendment of his release application. Surely, the release application was not liable to be branded as without substance merely on the ground that the petitioner's lodging house licence had been cancelled. In my opinion, the Rent Control and Eviction officer by wrongly refusing to grant time to the petitioner to amend his release application denied him of an opportunity to place his real case before him and this had the effect of vitiating his orders rejecting petitioner's application for release of the accommodation. 10. Again when the petitioner moved the application dated 9th February, 1979 requesting for the withdrawal of the earlier release application and for permission to file a fresh, release application, the Rent Control and Eviction officer rejected the same by saying that there was no ground to permit withdrawal of the same and to permit a resh release application. The criteria applied by the Rent Control and Eviction officer for holding that there did not exist any ground to permit withdrawal has not been indicated. As a matter of act, it appears that the Rent Control and Eviction officer took into consideration the need as mentioned in the application filed on 9th February 1979 and repelled it for a reason which, as already stated, was not adequate. As a matter of act, it appears that the Rent Control and Eviction officer took into consideration the need as mentioned in the application filed on 9th February 1979 and repelled it for a reason which, as already stated, was not adequate. The prayer made by the petitioner in his application filed on 9th February 1979 did not entail unnecessary harassment for adjournment of proceedings. Where a party applies for release of an accommodation for a particular purpose but then with the passage of time he wants to use it for a different purpose, there is no reason why he should not be permitted to state and substantiate the purpose for which he, at the time of the consideration of the application, requires the accommodation. It may be that if a party changes the purpose for occupation of the premises from stage to stage, without there being good reason for the same, his case that he needs the accommodation for his own use may be disbelieved. But then, it cannot be laid down as a general rule that if a person, during the pendency of a release application, changes his intention to occupy the premises, i released, for a purpose different from that for which he originally needed it, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to take up that case and to satisfy the Rent Control and Eviction officer about his bona fide needs with reference to that other purpose. In this view, I have no hesitation in holding that the Rent Control and Eviction officer was not right in not permitting the petitioner to withdraw his earlier release application and to support his case on the basis of application filed on 9th February, 1979. 11. Averments made in the petition make it clear that, ever since the rejection of petitioner's release application, his licence to run a lodging house in the main building of Padmini Newas has been renewed. 11. Averments made in the petition make it clear that, ever since the rejection of petitioner's release application, his licence to run a lodging house in the main building of Padmini Newas has been renewed. Accordingly, the Rent Control and Eviction officer should have considered whether the need set out for the release of the accommodation in the application filed on 9th February 1979 was, in view of the Act that petitioner's licence for running a lodging house in the main building of Padmini Newas was likely to be renewed and other relevant circumstance, genuine and bona fide The Rent Control and Eviction officer has not applied his mind to this material aspect of the case and this has the effect of vitiating his order. Of course, I should not be understood to lay down that in my opinion the case set up by the petitioner for release of accommodation necessarily deserves to be accepted. It will be for the Rent Control and Eviction officer to, when the matter goes back to him, form his own opinion on the basis of material before it. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that in any case the District Judge has taken this actual aspect also into consideration and has found that in view of the change in the stand taken by the petitioner, his case for personal occupation of the Padmini Newas cottage did not appear to be genuine. This, according to him, is a finding of fact which is not vitiated by any error of law for jurisdiction. Such a finding should be accepted and acted upon in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, urged that no case has been made out for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. It is true that normally in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution findings of act recorded by an authority within the four corners of its jurisdiction, are accepted and are not entered with. However, in this case I find that the jurisdiction to record the findings on questions of acts in relation to the matter in controversy, was with the Rent Control and Eviction officer. The District Judge merely exercised revisional jurisdiction. However, in this case I find that the jurisdiction to record the findings on questions of acts in relation to the matter in controversy, was with the Rent Control and Eviction officer. The District Judge merely exercised revisional jurisdiction. All that he could do was to test as to whether the original authority had acted without jurisdiction, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction for had acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. He was not expected to reappraise the evidence produced in the case and to record his own findings. In the circumstances, the District Judge should not have expressed his own opinion on merits of the controversy involved in the case. 14. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 15th February, 1979 and 24th April, 1979 are quashed. The case shall go back to the Rent Control and Eviction officer Mussoorie to decide petitioner's application for release on the basis that the petitioner now seeks the release of the accommodation on the grounds mentioned in the application filed on 9th February, 1979 in accordance with law. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, I direct that the Rent Control and Eviction officer should decide the case within six weeks of the filing of a certified copy of this order before him by any of the parties to this writ petition. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.