JUDGMENT A. N. Verma, J. - These two petitions are bring disposed of by a common judgment. They arise out of a single application filed by the landlord under section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, and are directed against a common judgment dated 22-2-1978 of the learned iii Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. 2. These are the relevant facts : There are two shops Nos. 33 and 33/1 situate in Gurusganj, Bulandshahr. Shanti Swarup, the petitioner of writ petition No. 2075 of 1978 is the tenant of shop No. 33/1 while the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are tenants of shop No. 33. The respondent No. 3 of claiming himself to be the landlord of these ships made a single application against the tenants of bath the aforesaid two shops under section 21 of the aforesaid Act for the eviction of the tenants on the following assertions The landlord had six sons. Three of whom were engaged in agriculture, while the youngest was getting education. The remaining two sons, namely, Lalit Prakash aged 26 years and married and Dinesh Prakash aged 23 years, have left education and were unemployed. The landlord desired that both there unemployed sons to he settled in business, Lalit Prakash in installing and running an oil expeller and Dinesh Prakaih in running a Lathe machine for manufacturing and selling Tube-well parts. Two shops were, therefore, needed for these two youngmen. The landlord did not have any other shop available for that purpose and hence the application under section 21. 3. The application was contested by the tenants who denied that the landlord needed the shops bona fide. It was asserted that the landlord bad a rental income of over a lac of rupees from a large number of shops as well as groves belonging to him and that he had no intention of settling Lalit Prakash and Dinesh Prakash in business. It was further asserted that the landlord had concealed from the Prescribed Authority, the fact that he had a number of shops in Sheikh Sarai, Sheetal Ganj and Ansari Road in the town of Bulandshahr itself. Nor had the landlord disclosed truly and correctly how many shops wire in his possession and how many had been let out. As regards their own need, the tenants asserted that they had no other shops available to them. They had earned consideration goodwill. Nor had the landlord disclosed truly and correctly how many shops wire in his possession and how many had been let out. As regards their own need, the tenants asserted that they had no other shops available to them. They had earned consideration goodwill. Shanti Swarup asserted that he had been in possession of the shop for the last more than 40 years and that he would suffer irreparable loss, if he was evicted from it. The other set of tenants also raised similar pleas. 4. In support of their respective versions both the parties filed various affidavits and documents. Shanti Swarup also filed extracts of Municipal assessments in regard to the various properties and shops belonging to the landlord in different localities including the properties of the landlord at Sheikh Sarai. 5. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the landlord holding that he did not bona fide require the shops in dispute. The Prescribed Authority further found on a comparison of respective hardship that the tenants would suffer much greater hardship than the landlord, if the application under section 21 was allowed. The Prescribed Authority observed that from the facts existing on the records, it did not seem that the landlord really desired his two sons mentioned above to set up the businesses indicated in the application and that it was not proved that these two sons of the landlord had the requisite training and qualification for the sort of business which, it was alleged, they proposed to start in the shops in dispute. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed an appeal. The appeal has been allowed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, by an order dated 22-2-1978. The learned District Judge held that the need of the landlord to set up his two sons in business seems to be genuine and bona fide. However, in the view of the learned District Judge even if one of the two shops was released, the requirements of the landlord's sons would be sufficiently satisfied. The learned District Judge held that the need of the landlord to set up his two sons in business seems to be genuine and bona fide. However, in the view of the learned District Judge even if one of the two shops was released, the requirements of the landlord's sons would be sufficiently satisfied. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that as between Shanti Swarup and the tenants of shop No. 33, the latter would suffer much greater hardship as they had absolutely no place where they could shift their business, while Shanti Swarup had at least one shop, though tenanted, belonging to him and that consequently the application of the landlord might be allowed against Shanti Swarup and dismissed against the tenant of shop No. 33. fie passed an order, accordingly, partly allowing the application of the landlord. 7. Both Shanti Swarup and the landlord have felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order ; Shanti Swarup by order directing his eviction and the landlord by the order dismissing his application in respect of shop No. 33. 8. Counsel for Shanti Swarup first assailed the order of the learned District Judge on the ground that the learned District Judge is not right in taking the view that the landlord bona fide intended to set up his two sons Dinesh Prakash and Lalit Prekash in the business. It was submitted that the finding of the Prescribed Authority on this aspect was correct and that the learned District Judge was not justified in taking a contrary view. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no substance in the above submission. The Prescribed Authority had dismissed the landlord's need on the short ground that the landlord had not produced any solid proof consisting of a certificate issued by any Government institute indicating that his sons had received any technical education. The Prescribed Authority overstressed the importance of technical education and it seems to have thought that till a landlord produced a certificate or diploma issued by some Government institution, the requirements of law would not be satisfied. 10. In my judgment, the question whether the landlord or his son has the requisite technical qualification or not within the meaning of Rule 16 of the rules framed under the said Act would depend on the sort of business which is proposed to be started in the accommodation under the tenancy. 10. In my judgment, the question whether the landlord or his son has the requisite technical qualification or not within the meaning of Rule 16 of the rules framed under the said Act would depend on the sort of business which is proposed to be started in the accommodation under the tenancy. The landlord in the present case proposed to take the shop in dispute for the purposes of enabling his sons to run a lathe machine and an oil expeller, neither of which, in my view necessitated as a pre-requisite possession of a degree or diploma issued by some Engineering Institute run by the Government. The landlord had adduced sufficient evidence to indicate that his sons had required the requisite technical know-how and training for doing the business mentioned above. The learned District Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the two sons of landlord were unemployed and had to be settled in business. The learned District Judge has not committed any error in arriving at the conclusion that the landlord bona fide intended that his two sons should start some business and earn a living for themselves. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shanti Swarup however, vehemently argued that the trial court had recorded a categorical finding that even if it be assumed that the landlord bona fide required some shops for his two sons, there were already available two shops in Sheikh Sarai belonging to Lalit Prakash and Dinesh Prakash and that these two shops were situate at Sheikh Sarai in the same town. This finding of the prescribed Authority, urged counsel for the petitioner, was based on concrete evidence supplied by Shanti Swarup, namely, the Municipal assessment (paper No. 37/8) in which it was clearly indicated that here were two shops in Sheikh Sarai belonging to and owned by Lalit Prakash and Dinesh Prakash. The learned District Judge tell into a manifest error of law in holding that the landlord did not have any shops available to him without adverting the aforesaid finding of the Prescribed Authority. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the submission of counsel for Shanti Swarup is well-founded. On the controversy whether the landlord has available to him shops in Sheikh Sarai, the parties have filed supplementary affidavit in this court. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the submission of counsel for Shanti Swarup is well-founded. On the controversy whether the landlord has available to him shops in Sheikh Sarai, the parties have filed supplementary affidavit in this court. Shanti Swarup in his affidavit dated 23.1.1980 has asserted that Lalit Prakash and Dinesh Prakash have vacant shops in their possession in Sheikh Sarai and that this fact had been proved by him by means of the Municipal extracts mentioned above. It has been asserted in this affidavit that the family of the landlord is residing on the first floor of their house in Sheikh Sarai and in the same locality the aforesaid shops are also situate and available. 13. The Prescribed Authority has recorded a categorical finding that Lalit Prakash and Dinesh Prakash have a shop in their occupation in Sheikh Sarai and this finding is based on paper No. 37/8. The said paper has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, in this court. In the extract of Municipal assessment (paper No. 37/8) building No. 6, Sheikh Sarai has been shown in the ownership and occupation of Lalit Prakash. Counsel for the landlord, however, vehemently urged that it was not the case of Shanti Swarup before the courts below that the landlord had any shop available to him at Sheikh Sarai and that consequently, the said finding of the Prescribed Authority is clearly unsustainable. I do not agree. From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, as set out in the order of the Prescribed Authority, as well as from the affidavits filed on behalf of Shanti Swarup, true copies whereof have been filed with the writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits, it does seem fix that the tenant Shanti Swarup has been clearly asserting from the beginning that Lalit Prakash and Dinesh Prakash a shop in their occupation at Sheikh Sarai. It is, therefore, not correct to say that this plea is being taken for the first time in the writ petition. The learned District Judge has no doubt observed as follows :- "From the evidence on record it no doubt appears that the appellant and his sons own other shops as well but it is not in evidence, that any of those shops is lying vacant and is in possession of the appellant or his sons." 14. The learned District Judge has no doubt observed as follows :- "From the evidence on record it no doubt appears that the appellant and his sons own other shops as well but it is not in evidence, that any of those shops is lying vacant and is in possession of the appellant or his sons." 14. From these observations, it is not possible to any whether the learned District Judge had perused or was aware of the specific material on the record pertaining to the question whether Dinesh Prakash and Lalit Prakash have in their possession a shop or shops at Sheikh Sarai. The Prescribed Authority had recorded a specific finding on this aspect referred to the material on Which this finding was based. The learned District Judge appears to have over-looked that finding and the material. If the landlord or his said two sons have a shops or shops in Sheikh Sarai in their possession, it would constitute an important circumstance having a material bearing on the question of bona fide requirement as well as comparative hardship. 15. It is, therefore, necessary to require the learned District Judge to reconsider the question whether the landlord and his sons have any other shops available to them which may satisfy their requirements. The learned District Judge should give a finding on this aspect after taking into consideration the entire material on the record. If the parties so choose they may file additional evidence on this limited controversy namely, whether the landlord and his sons have any shop available to them at Sheikh Sarai as alleged by Shanti Swarup. In case the learned District Judge comes to the conclusion that the landlord and his son do not have any shop at Sheikh Sarai available to them the conclusion of the learned District Judge that the landlord bona fide requires the shop of Shanti Swarup would be fully justified in view of the fact that Dinesh Prakash and Lalit Prakash, the two sons of the landlord, are unemployed and have to be settled in business. 16. Learned counsel for Shanti Swarup also vehemently criticised the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of relating hardship. 16. Learned counsel for Shanti Swarup also vehemently criticised the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of relating hardship. As however, the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of comparative harship has been inevitably affected by the finding of the District Judge on the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, the said finding must also be reconsidered. In any case, the finding on the question of comparative hardship must necessarily depend also on the answer to the question whether the landlord and his sons have any shop available to them at Sheikh Sarai as alleged by the tenants. 17. Coming to the writ petition filed by landlord namely Writ Petition No. 5846 of 1978 the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of relative hardship appears to be unexceptionable. The learned District Judge has observed that so far as the tenants of shop No. 33 are concerned, it was clear that they would suffer much greater harship than the landlord as according to the learned District Judge, there was nothing on the record to show that the said tenants had any other accommodation available to them or had any other source of livelihood. Learned counsel for the landlord was entirely unable to point out any error, whether of fact or of law, in the said finding of the learned District Judge. On the said finding of the learned District Judge, the application of the landlord in record to shop No. 33 was rightly rejected. 18. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that Writ Petition No. 2075 of 1978 succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned District Judge in so far as shop No. 33/1 is concerned is quashed. The case is remanded to the respondent No. 1 for being disposed of according to law, having regard to the observations made by me hereinabove in regard to shop No. 33/1. The order of respondent No. 1 as regards shop No. 33, however, confirmed and Writ Petition No. 5846 of 1978 is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in both the petitions.