ORDER T.S. Misra, J. - Ram Narain Sahu, the petitioner, filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) against Kashmir Fruit Mart for release of a shop in his favour and for eviction of Kashmir Fruit Mart. He alleged that he had purchased two shops. One of them is the shop in question which has been in the tenancy of the opposite party at a monthly rental of Rs. 108.75 p. The other shop is in the tenancy of Shital and Co. He gave a notice to the opposite party stating that he had purchased the shop for his personal use and occupation as he has no business accommodation with him. He called upon the opposite party to vacate the said shop so that he may start his business therein. He further alleged that he had no source of income and was doing private service on a very meagre salary which was hardly sufficient to meet even his basic requirements of the daily necessities. In para 6 of the application he stated that he had no other shop or business accommodation excepting the shop in question and, therefore, the need for the said shop was most urgent, genuine and bona fide. The opposite party was said to be a rich man: hence he could easily arrange for some alternative accommodation where he could carry on his business. 2. The application was resisted the opposite-party, Kashmir Fruit Mart. In paragraph 5 of his written-statement the opposite-party alleged that the applicant is a proprietor of the Open House in Nowrojee Building which is now called Sahu Building, that the applicant and his three brothers had purchased the said Nowrojee Building with nine shops in one of which Sahu Kirana Stores and in another Sahu Investment Company were being run. In the third shop which was also with the purchasers and which was in the tenancy of Brij Pharmacy and which they got vacated from them, they had opened a dry cleaning business. Further, it was alleged that two of the nine shops in the Sahu Building which were in the tenancy of Grover and Co. and Kashmir Fruit Mart had been purchased by Srimati Virmati Sahu, wife of the applicant. She got one shop vacated from Grover and Co. in which Sahu Investment Co. had been opened. Further, it was alleged that two of the nine shops in the Sahu Building which were in the tenancy of Grover and Co. and Kashmir Fruit Mart had been purchased by Srimati Virmati Sahu, wife of the applicant. She got one shop vacated from Grover and Co. in which Sahu Investment Co. had been opened. The applicant and the applicant's brothers were also said to have been owning three Pan stalls from each of which they were realising Rs. 10/- per day and also one Chikan Embroidery stall from which they were realising Rs. 5/- a day as rent. Besides, they have a number of ration shops in the city of Lucknow in the name of one or the other member of the family. They have also one grain shop in Daliganj. All the brothers, their wives and their children are working together either as partners or as members of joint Hindu family. Thus the applicant was said to be earning not less than Rs. 3000/- per month. The opposite-party contended that his need was more genuine and pressing than the need of the applicant. He maintained that his family and the family of his brother as also an invalid blind sister were all dependent on the earning of the shop in dispute; hence if the opposite-party is evicted from the said shop, he and his dependants would be ruined and greatly inconvenienced. In para 11 of the written-statement it was, alleged that the opposite-party's father had started business in the shop in question in the year 1932. The landlord of that building was one Sri Nowrojee who had let out that shop at Rs. 40/- per month. Now the rent has been increased to Rs. 108.75 P. The father of the opposite party carried on business in the said shop so long as he was alive and after his death the opposite party and his brothers with their hard work and industry have been carrying on the business therein. On these facts it was alleged that the need of the opposite-party was more pressing than that of the applicant. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties allowed the application under Section 21 of the Act. The opposite-party preferred an appeal from the said order which was allowed and the application under Section 21 of the Act was rejected. On these facts it was alleged that the need of the opposite-party was more pressing than that of the applicant. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties allowed the application under Section 21 of the Act. The opposite-party preferred an appeal from the said order which was allowed and the application under Section 21 of the Act was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner landlord has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the order of the appellate Court below. 3. Section 21 of the Act provides that the Prescribed Authority may on an application of the landlord in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from the building under his tenancy on the ground, inter alia, that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for purposes of any profession, trade or calling or for occupation by himself or any member of his family. However, the Prescribed Authority shall take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed. In view of the proviso to Section 21 as introduced by the U.P. Amending Act of 1976 it is now obligatory on the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority to take into account the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant and for that purpose to have regard to such factors as may be prescribed by the rules in deciding whether or not to pass an order of eviction against a tenant. Rule 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, furnishes guidelines in this behalf Rule 16 (2) as introduced by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Second Amendment) Rules, 1977 which has been given retrospective effect provides, inter alia, that while considering an application for release under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 21 in respect of business, the prescribed Authority shall also have regard to such facts as the following :- "(a) the greater the period since when the tenant opposite-party, or the original tenant whose heir the opposite-party is, has been carrying on his business in that building the less the justification for allowing the application." It has to be seen as to whether the appellate Court below has applied these tests while rejecting the application under Section 21 of the Act. It was not disputed before me that the shop in question was originally let out to the father of the opposite-party in the year 1932 and ever since then the business of the opposite-party has been carried on in that shop. So long as the father of the opposite-party remained alive, he carried on his business in the said shop and thereafter the opposite-party has been running the business. Thus for about 48 years the shop in question has been in the occupation of the father of the opposite-party and thereafter in his own occupation. This factor assumes importance in view of the provisions of cl. (a) of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules. It has further to be seen while disposing the application under Section 21 of the Act as to whether the landlord bona fide requires the shop in dispute for the purpose of trade as alleged and then it has to be seen as to whether the need of the landlord is more genuine than that of the tenant. A comparative assessment will have, therefore, to be made with regard to the hardship which might be caused to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application. The landlord has to establish his bona fide requirement of the shop. A comparative assessment will have, therefore, to be made with regard to the hardship which might be caused to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application. The landlord has to establish his bona fide requirement of the shop. The Court has at the same time to make a comparative assessment of the hardship which might be caused to the landlord or the tenant either on the grant of the application or on the refusal of the same. The landlord came with the allegation that he did not own any other shop in the city of Lucknow, that he was doing a private service on a meagre salary and that he had to support himself, his wife and minor children who were receiving education. He had therefore, contended that he bona fide required the shop in dispute for carrying on business therein. Incidentally he did not disclose in his petition as to what business he actually wanted to do in the said shop nor did he disclose as to where he was privately employed and what was his salary. The opposite-party-tenant in his written-statement stated that the landlord belongs to a very rich family, that, he and his brothers who were members of the joint Hindu family were carrying on business at different places in the city of Lucknow and were owning several businesses and that they were also owners of Nowrojee building which is now known as Sahu Building at Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow and which contained nine shops out of which three shops were available to them and which in fact were occupied by them. It was alleged that a shop wherein Grover & Co. was carrying on business was got vacated and the petitioner-landlord started his business in the name of Sahu Investment Co. The tenant, as pointed out earlier, stated that his need was more genuine than that of the landlord. He had to support a large family consisting of eleven members including a blind sister and the only source of livelihood was the business which he was carrying on in the shop in dispute. He pointed out that the said shop had been in his possession for the last 48 years or so. He had to support a large family consisting of eleven members including a blind sister and the only source of livelihood was the business which he was carrying on in the shop in dispute. He pointed out that the said shop had been in his possession for the last 48 years or so. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application but on appeal the matter was considered afresh on merits and the entire evidence and circumstances were re-appreciated. The appellate Court below has found that: (1) The tenant-opposite-party does not own any other shop in the city of Lucknow excepting the shop in question. (2) The family of the tenant and his two brothers consisting of 11 members are entirely dependent upon the income of the shop in question. (3) The alternative accommodation offered by the landlord being shop No. 28 situate in Janpath Market, Lucknow belongs to Lucknow Municipal Corporation and had been allotted to the landlord on the removal of Hero Pen House and other stalls from Sahu Building. The said shop No. 28 could not, therefore, be validly transferred to the tenant nor the tenant can rightfully claim the allotment of the same in his own name. Therefore, the offer of an alternative shop by the landlord was meaningless. Further, the situation of the shop in question in much better than the alternative shop suggested. (4) If the landlord would have been actually in need of opening a business of his own, he could have started the business at the time when one of the shops was got vacated from Grover & Co. and if no shop was opened at that time, the same could have been opened by the landlord on 5-10-1975 or thereafter when, the partnership in Sahu Investment Company was resolved. (5) The landlord did not specify the name of business which he intended to start in the shop in question. There is no question of settling any of the sons of the applicant in any business as they are still minors and are pursuing their studies in the best and fine institutions-of Lucknow. On these grounds the appellate Court below found that the landlord's need for the shop in question cannot be said to be genuine and bona fide. 4. There is no question of settling any of the sons of the applicant in any business as they are still minors and are pursuing their studies in the best and fine institutions-of Lucknow. On these grounds the appellate Court below found that the landlord's need for the shop in question cannot be said to be genuine and bona fide. 4. Comparing the hardship of the landlord and the tenant in the light of Rule 16 (2) (a), the appellate Court below held that the tenant will be put to greater hardship if the application is; allowed and he will be ruined in case he was evicted from the shop. In this connection it was observed that there will, be less justification for release of the shop as the tenant has been carrying on business in the shop in question since 1932 and has earned a good will. These findings, which are based on appreciation of evidence and surrounding circumstances, cannot be disturbed. They are binding and conclusive, being findings of fact. The guidelines provided in Rule 16 (2) (a) were kept in view while comparing the hardship of the landlord and the tenant. The landlord failed to make out that he bona fide required the shop in dispute for the purpose of trade. The conditions of Section 21 having not been fulfilled the appellate Court below rejected the application, and in my view rightly and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. 5. There is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.