JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This is a landlord's petition directed against an order passed by the Learned District Judge dated 24-3-1979 partly allowing an appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 directing the eviction of M/ s. Bata India Ltd., Shikohabad, respondent No. 3, the tenant of the accommodation in dispute from the portion of the accommodation let out by the petitioner to the said tenant. 2. These are the relevant facts. The petitioner is admittedly the landlord and the respondent No. 3, the tenant of a shop known as "Bata Shoes". The landlord filed an application under section 21 of the aforesaid Act for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that his son Ram Pratap Gupta was a student of Medicines studying for his M.B.B.S. degree at Magadh Medical College, Gaya, that the said son would shortly be completing his course and that he had decided to set up his medical practise at Shikohabad, where the accommodation in dispute is situate. It was further asserted that the landlord had no other shop available except the shop in dispute for his son Ram Pratap Gupta to start his medical practise at Shikohabad. 3. The application was resisted by the tenant on a variety of grounds. The tenant pointed out a number of accommodations which according to the tenant were available to the landlord for his needs. The Prescribed Authority accepted the case of the tenant and rejected the application. 4. The appellate court disagreeing with the trial court came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the accommodation to enable his son Ram Pratap Gupta to set up his medical practise was bona fide and real. The Learned District Judge also found that as between the landlord and the tenant, the former would suffer greater hardship than the latter. The Learned District Judge also rejected the various so-called alternative accommodations suggested by the tenant. However, the Learned District Judge made an attempt to strike a balance. He came to the conclusion that a shop for accommodation 9" wide x 15' to 16' deep would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the son of the landlord for running a clinic. However, the Learned District Judge made an attempt to strike a balance. He came to the conclusion that a shop for accommodation 9" wide x 15' to 16' deep would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the son of the landlord for running a clinic. The Learned District Judge having found this, directed that in order to make available to the landlord a shop of this dimension, a part only of the shop in dispute may be released while the remaining part may be obtained from the small shop belonging to the landlord himself which is just west to the shop in dispute. The Learned District Judge then observed that by making suitable structural changes in the building, the landlord would be able to provide a suitable clinic for his son Ram Pratap Gupta. With this finding, the learned District Judge directed the release of a part only of the accommodation in dispute marked by letters A, Al, 1, E1, E and shown in paper No. 28/C. The application of the landlord for the remaining part of the shop was, however, dismissed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned District Judge having found on both the issues, namely, bona fide requirement and relative hardship, in favour of landlord, he fell into a patent error of jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's application in respect of remaining part by embarking upon some kind of arrangement suggested in the order for meeting the requirements of the landlord. Counsel submitted that the learned District Judge fell into a patent error of law in not keeping in mind the material on the record showing that the shop immediately to the west of the shop is dispute was not vacant but was occupied by the petitioner's fifth the son Anil Kumar who was running a general merchandise shop in that accommodation. The learned District Judge fell into a manifest error in assuming this shop to be vacant, and this assumption being the basis of the entire order, it was liable to be set aside. Counsel also argued that in disposing of an application under section 21 of the Act, it is not permissible to the Court for the Prescribed Authority to direct the landlords to undertake substantial structural changes in order to meet their requirements. 6. Counsel also argued that in disposing of an application under section 21 of the Act, it is not permissible to the Court for the Prescribed Authority to direct the landlords to undertake substantial structural changes in order to meet their requirements. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that the order passed by the learned District Judge is unsustainable. The learned District Judge has recorded a finding that the need of the landlord for some accommodation to enable his son to run a clinic is bona fide and real. This finding of the learned District Judge is not vitiated by any error of law and is affirmed. However, the learned District Judge has clearly gone wrong in rejecting the application of the landlord for the remaining part of the accommodation in dispute on a hypothesis for which there was no basis for justification. The learned District Judge has assumed that the shop towards the west of the shop in dispute in which Anil Kumar is stated to be doing some business is available and can be occupied by the landlord without any difficulty. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the affidavits filed in this case as well as from the statement of the petitioner which he made before the Prescribed Authority as P.W. 1 in which he has clearly stated that the shop towards west of the shop in dispute is the shop where his son Anil Kumar is doing business of general merchandise. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that the landlord himself had offered that shop as an alternative accommodation to the tenant. However, I find no material on the record, at least none pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent to indicate that such an offer was made by the landlord. In any case, the learned District Judge should have found whether that the accommodation, namely, the small shop towards the west of the accommodation in dispute was or was not available to the landlord. Without such a finding, the case could not be satisfactorily disposed of on the premise that the landlord's need could be met by the said shop. In any case, the learned District Judge should have found whether that the accommodation, namely, the small shop towards the west of the accommodation in dispute was or was not available to the landlord. Without such a finding, the case could not be satisfactorily disposed of on the premise that the landlord's need could be met by the said shop. The learned District Judge has not given any finding on whether the deprivation of the shop towards west would not result in the suspension of the business which is alleged to be carried on by Anil Kumar in that shop. 7. I also agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that while disposing of an application under section 21 of the aforesaid U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, it was not permissible to the learned District Judge to reject the petitioner's application on the suggestion that the petitioner could by undertaking structural changes in the building in question meet his requirements. Having found that the need of the landlord for additional accommodation for his son was bona fide, the learned District Judge could not dismiss the petitioner's application legally by making suggestions which involved undertaking of structural changes of substantial character. The learned District Judge should, therefore, reconsider the question whether the landlord has available with him any accommodation which may suit the requirements of his son in the light of the observations made above. 8. Counsel for the respondent made a suggestion that the tenant was willing to bear the costs of any construction which may be involved in building a suitable clinic for the landlord's son. The learned District Judge when reconsidering the matter, may consider the feasibility of such a suggestion. 9. In view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge dated 24-3-1979 is quashed. The case is remanded to the learned III Additional District Judge, Mainpuri for being disposed of according to law having regard to the observations made in this judgment. The learned District Judge will try and dispose of the appeal at an early date. 10. The parties will bear their own costs.