ORDER N. D. Ojha, J. - The petitioner is the landlord of two adjoining shops which are occupied by respondents 3 and 4, who are brothers, as tenants. An application was made by the petitioner for release of these two shops in his favour under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) on the allegations that two of his sons bad left their studies and were to be engaged in business. The application was contested by respondents 3 and 4. The Presribed Authority, however, came to the conclusion that the need of the petitioner was bona fide. After recording the finding about the bona fide need of the petitioner, the Prescribed Authority proceeded to consider the question of comparative hardship of the parties. It came to the conclusion that so far as Bankey Lal, respondent No. 3, is concerned, greater hardship would be caused to him in the event of the release application being allowed than the likely hardship to the petitioner on the refusal of the said application. On this finding, he dismissed the release application so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned. As regards respondent No. 4 the Prescribed Authority held that it had been established that he had abandoned the business which was being carried on by him in the shop under his tenancy and had shifted to his village to assist his father in cultivation. On this finding, the Prescribed Authority was of the view that the hardship which was likely to be caused to the petitioner in the event of the release application being dismissed would be greater than the hardship which would be caused to respondent No. 4 on the said application being allowed. On this finding the application for release was allowed as against respondent No. 4. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed an appeal in so far his application against respondent No. 3 had been dismissed. Another appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 allowing the release application against him. Both these appeals came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Agra, respondent No. 1. By the impugned order dated 31st May, 1977, respondent No. 1 dis- missed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed that of respondent Na. 4. Another appeal was filed by respondent No. 4 allowing the release application against him. Both these appeals came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Agra, respondent No. 1. By the impugned order dated 31st May, 1977, respondent No. 1 dis- missed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed that of respondent Na. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order of the Prescribed Authority in so far as his application for release against respondent No. 3 has been dismissed as also the quashing of the order of respondent No. 1 in its entirety. 2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that, even without considering the material evidence produced by the petitioner, the Additional District Judge has reversed the finding of the Prescribed Authority not only on the question of comparative hardship so far as the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are concerned, but has also made an unwarranted observation that if the sons of the petitioner also wanted to start business more money could be invested in the existing business and in this way the petitioner could augment his income. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that that the submission of the petitioner's counsel is well founded. 4. As seen above, the case of the petitioner was that two of his sons bad left their studies and bad to be engaged in business so that they could earn their livelihood. On a consideration of the evidence, produced by the parties, the Prescribed Authority had recorded a finding that the need of the petitioner was bona fide. The Additional District Judge pointed out that the petitioner was proved to have purchased a plot of land for a sum of Rs. 32,000/- which indicated that the business which he was already carrying on was quite flourishing. In paragraph 26 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner had taken loans from various persons and there was no basis for the Additional District Judge to hold that the existing business of the petitioner was quite flourishing and the sum of Rs. 32,000/- had been invested out of the profit of the said business. Annexure "2" to the rejoinder-affidavit gives details of the documents which had been filed to establish that the petitioner had taken loans from various sources. 32,000/- had been invested out of the profit of the said business. Annexure "2" to the rejoinder-affidavit gives details of the documents which had been filed to establish that the petitioner had taken loans from various sources. A perusal of the order of the Additional District Judge indicates that he has completely ignored these documents and the finding of the Additional District Judge on this point is just conjectural, and apparently cannot be sustained. Likewise, the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the question of comparative hardship vis-a-vis the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was inter alia based on several circumstances. For instance (1) notice of an application made by the petitioner under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 was served on respondent No. 4 at his village and not at Agra where the shop in disputeis situate, (2) the licence of the business carried on by respondent No. 4 had not been renewed after 10th March, 1972 and (3) respondent No. 4 had failed to produce any evidence which may indicate that at the relevant time he was residing at Agra and carrying on business in the shop in question and not in his village as asserted by the petitioner and doing cultivation running a flour mill. The Additional District Judge has not adverted to these aspects of the matter even though he was reversing the finding of the Prescribed Authority. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the circumstance that respondent No. 3, who was the brother of respondent No. 4, had broken open the partition wall between the two shops in dispute and had occupied even that shop which was in the tenancy of respondent No. 4 and was carrying on business even in that shop as asserted and proved by the petitioner indicated that respondent No. 4 had abandoned the shop in question as held by the Prescribed Authority. His case further is that the Additional District Judge has not given any reason whatsoever as to why he disbelieved the affidavit of Chandrabhan a person residing in the neighbourhood of the shop in dispute in so far as he stated that respondent No 4 had not been carrying on business in the shop under his tenancy a fact which being a neighbour was in his personal knowledge. In my opinion, there is substance in these submissions and the order of the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained on the question about comparative hardship also. It would be seen that the Additional District Judge has chosen to base his jugment more on conjectures and surmises than on the evidence on record. 6. In view of the finding recorded concurrently by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge, at any rate, on the point that greater hardship would be caused to respondent No. 3 in the event of the release application being allowed against him than the hardship likely to be caused to the petitioner on the refusal of that application, the impugned order in so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned cannot be quashed even if the need of the petitioner was bona fide. In this view of the matter, I am of opinion that it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned order, in so far as the release application has been dismissed as against respondent No. 3. The Additional District Judge will, however, now decide the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 afresh recording a finding on the question of the petitioner's bona fide need as also the question of comparative hardship vis-a-vis the petitioner and respondent No. 4. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1, in so far as he had allowed Misc. Appeal No. 467 of 1975 (Tika Ram v. Bishamhhar Nath), is quashed and he is directed to decide the said appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.