ORDER N.D. Ojha, J. - Respondents 1 to 7 are the landlords of a shop and the petitioner is its tenant. An application was made by respondents 1 to 7 for the release of the said shop in their favour on the ground that it was required for their bona fide need. The application was contested by the petitioner. 2. The Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 3 and on an appeal, the appellate authority, the IV Additional District Judge, respondent No. 9 have after hearing the parties, come to a concurrent conclusion that the need of the landlord-respondents was bona fide and greater than the need of the tenant-petitioner. Application for release was accordingly allowed by the impugned orders. 3. It has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that so far as the need of respondent No. 4 Pramod Kumar Jain is concerned, it has been held in the impugned orders that his need was not bona fide. Consequently on the finding that the need of respondent No. 2 Kamal Kumar Jain was bona fide only a portion of the shop in dispute ought to have been released in favour of the landlord-respondents and not the whole of it. In this connection it may be pointed out that the petitioner is in occupation of a single shop. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is any partition wall in the shop so that one portion of the shop could be used by the petitioner and the other by the landlord respondents. User of a single shop by two members of the same family either of the landlord or of the tenant by making temporary arrangement is different from user of a portion of a single shop by the landlord and the other by the tenant. In this view of the matter it was not possible to release a portion of the shop which constitutes a single unit in favour of the landlord respondents without directing them to undertake fresh constructions or make structural changes of a substantial character in order to divide one shop into two in a manner that each was independent of the other. In Smt. Ram Kail v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, 1980 A.W.C. 108, it has been held by this Court although in a slightly different context that a direction to make additional constructions etc. In Smt. Ram Kail v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, 1980 A.W.C. 108, it has been held by this Court although in a slightly different context that a direction to make additional constructions etc. cannot be given while deciding an application under section 21 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Neither in the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 nor in the Rules framed thereunder has any provision authorising the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority to compel the landlord to make such construction or structural alteration been brought to my notice. If there is an accommodation comprising of severable portions in occupation of the tenant so that both the tenant and the landlord can be accommodated without requiring the landlord to make any substantial additions or alterations in the building a portion alone of such accommodation and not the entire accommodation can of course be released in favour of the landlord and the remaining portion allowed to continue in the tenant's occupation. This is obviously not the position in the instant case. The impugned orders cannot consequently be quashed on this ground. 4. As regards the finding recorded by the authorities below that the need of the landlords was bona fide and greater than that of the tenant, it may be pointed out that the said finding is a finding of fact based on an appraisal of evidence and cannot be challenged in a writ petition. If authority were needed for the proposition, reference may be made to Muni Lal & others v. Prescribed Authority and others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 29. , M/s. India Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin M. A. Baker and another, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 45. and Mattu Lal v. Radhey Lal, 1975 R.C.J. 86 (S.C.). 5. It was then urged that the fact that the sons of the petitioner were carrying on business in the shop in dispute has erroneously been used as a circumstance to hold that the petitioner was not himself carrying on business, inasmuch as his sons would be deemed to be carrying on business on behalf of the petitioner. So far as this submission is concerned it may be pointed out that it is not a matter of presumption. So far as this submission is concerned it may be pointed out that it is not a matter of presumption. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties the authorities below have held that the petitioner had failed to establish that the business carried on by the sons of the petitioner was a family business. They were held that the petitioner had parted with possession at least of a portion of the shop in favour of his sons who were doing their own business. This finding again is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence. Further the finding about comparative hardship is not based on this circumstance alone. The authorities below have also found that the petitioner had purchased another shop in the same locality in which business of selling books was carried on. 6. On the basis of an affidavit and a copy of the sale deed, filed as additional evidence in the writ petition, it has been urged that there has been a private partition amongst respondents 1 to 4 and the shop in dispute has fallen to the share of respondent No. 4 whose need was found by the authorities below not to be genuine and further that in the year 1980, after the decision of the case by the authorities below, respondents 1 to 4 have purchased a house consisting of four shops also and have obtained vacant possession over the same. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in which the theory of alleged partition has been denied. Further it has been asserted that the accommodation in the residential house of the landlord- respondents was insufficient and the house referred to in the supplementary counter affidavit was purchased for accommodating some of the members of the family. It has further been urged that the newly purchased house is adjacent to their old residential house. In regard to the use of the said house, it has been stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that one shop along with the other residential portion was being occupied by some members of the family of the landlord-respondents and the remaining three shops were in occupation of sitting tenants. In regard to the use of the said house, it has been stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that one shop along with the other residential portion was being occupied by some members of the family of the landlord-respondents and the remaining three shops were in occupation of sitting tenants. Even though in the supplementary affidavit it was stated in paragraph 5 that there are four shops in the house purchased by the landlord-respondents in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit it was stated that on a perusal of the sale deed appears that there are really seven shops therein. The petitioner cannot be permitted to change his case from time to time and chat too by way of producing additional evidence in the writ petition. Had it been correct that there were really seven shops in the newly purchased house, the petitioner would have stated so in the main supplementary affidavit itself. It is only after the averment made in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit was squarely met in the supplementary counter affidavit that the theory of seven shops was set up in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. On the basis of these affidavits I am satisfied that the stand taken by the landlord respondents in the supplementary counter-affidavit in regard to the newly purchased house is correct. It appears that except three shops, which are in the occupation of three sitting tenants as pointed out above, the remaining portion of the building is being used by the landlord respondents as residential accommodation in order to meet the requirements of their large family. Further the newly purchased house is adjacent to the old residential house of the landlord- respondents whereas the shop in question is in the market. The purpose for which the shop in dispute is required by the landlord-respondents is to have a show-room for the medicines prepared by them, and for that purpose a shop in the market area will obviously be needed. 7. As regards the plea of partition set up before this court it may be pointed out that no such material to prove any partition as alleged by the petitioner has been furnished which may justify a finding being recorded in favour of the petitioner on the face of the clear denial by the landlord-respondents in this behalf. 7. As regards the plea of partition set up before this court it may be pointed out that no such material to prove any partition as alleged by the petitioner has been furnished which may justify a finding being recorded in favour of the petitioner on the face of the clear denial by the landlord-respondents in this behalf. In this view of the matter, I am of opinion that it is not possible to quash the impugned orders even on the basis of the additional evidence produced in the writ petition. 8. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed. But in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. The petitioner is granted one month's time to vacate the shop in question.