JUDGMENT : A.N. Verma, J. This is landlady's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is directed against the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dismissing her application for release of an accommodation. 2. Shortly stated the material facts are these; The Petitioner is the owner and landlord of house No. 32, Mohalla Radha Kishan, Bulandshahr. The Respondent No. 3 is the tenant of a portion of the said house. The Petitioner, herself is residing partly on the ground floor and partly on the first floor of the said accommodation. The Petitioner moved an application u/s 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that the Petitioner's eldest son has passed his LL.B. examination. He has been married recently and has a child. The accommodation in the occupation of the Petitioner's family was consequent to meet the additional requirements of the Petitioner's family consequent upon the marriage of the said son of the Petitioner and his having set up practice as a lawyer for which he requires a chamber. The application of the Petitioner was contested by the Respondent No. 3 on the ground that the need of the land-lady was not genuine. She had instituted a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of default in the payment of arrears of rent which was dismissed. The accommodation already in possession of the Petitioner was sufficient to meet even the additional requirements of the Petitioner and the members of her family. 3. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the Petitioner's application. Aggrieved by the decision of the prescribed Authority, the Petitioner filed an appeal which, too, has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the learned District Judge has committed a patent error of law in dismissing the Petitioner's application even after holding that the need of the Petitioner, in view of her growing family and the fact that her elder son has been married and set up practice as a lawyer was bona fide, by taking the view that the additional requirements of the Petitioner's family could be met by the Petitioner undertaking fresh constructions. 5. 5. The learned Counsel for the resident No. 3, on the other hand, urged that the need of the Petitioner is not at all genuine, having regard to the number of rooms already available with her, and, in any case, the hardship, which the Respondent No. 3 would face in consequence of the application for release being allowed, would be much greater than the land-lady would suffer if her application was dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition is entitled to succeed and that the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge is unsustainable. The learned III Additional District Judge appears to have accepted the case of the Petitioner in so far as her growing need in consequence of the marriage of her eldest son and the latter having to set up practice AS a lawyer is concerned. But the learned District Judge seems to think that the Petitioner's additional need can be satisfied by the conversion of a part of the accommodation on the ground floor into a living-room and the store-room into a bath-room as well by the construction of an additional room on the first floor. The learned III Additional District Judge has also suggested some changes with regard to the manner of use of the accommodation which the land-lady might make in order to meet her additional requirements. 7. In my view, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in his submission that the application of the land-lady could not be thrown out on the suggestion that the land-lady might make additional or fresh constructions or other substantial structural changes in the building in her occupation in order to meet her additional requirements. The learned District Judge does not appear to have comprehended correctly the true scope of Section 21 of the Act. What he was called upon to enquire was whether the accommodation was required bona fide by the land-lady for being occupied by her and the members of her family. Whether the need of the land-lady was genuine or not had to be decided with reference to the existing accommodation available with her. What he was called upon to enquire was whether the accommodation was required bona fide by the land-lady for being occupied by her and the members of her family. Whether the need of the land-lady was genuine or not had to be decided with reference to the existing accommodation available with her. In my judgment It is not correct while considering an application for release u/s 21 of the aforesaid Act to direct the landlord to under-take fresh constructions or make structural changes of substantial character in order to meet his bona fide requirements. The learned III Additional District Judge has, therefore, erred in dismissing the Petitioner's application on the ground that her needs could be satisfied by her undertaking wholesale structural changes on the ground and first floors of the buildings. The learned III Additional District Judge has obviously not correctly appreciated the true scope of the power exercisable u/s 21 of the Act. 8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 urged that the accommodation in dispute being residential in character, could not be released for business purposes in view of the third proviso to Section 21(1) of the aforesaid Act, I do not agree with this submission. The application of the Petitioner is based primarily and essentially for the release of accommodation for residential purposes. The mere fact that in a portion of the building the son of the Petitioner intends to set up practice would not alter the dominant purpose of the residence into one of business purpose. There is, therefore, no substance in this argument. 9. The learned III Additional District Judge will, therefore, reconsider the entire case afresh and decide the appeal filed by the Petitioner according to law in the light of the observations made by me in this judgment. 10. The result of the aforesaid' discussion is that the petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge dated 18-2-1976 are quashed, the case is remapded to the Respondent No. I for being disposed of according to law having regard to the observation made by me above. The parties will bear their own costs of this petition.