JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - The present writ petition has been filed by a landlord against an order passed under Section 22 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 allowing the appeal and dismissing his application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act. That Act is hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT'. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was moved by the petitioners alleging that the disputed premises were being utilised by them for business of denting and welding. That business was being done by one Prem Chand. Prem Chand died in 1965. On his death his father was employed by the petitioners or their father. The father of Prem Chand, Manu Lal was not a good worker and he was sought to be replaced. When he came to know of it, he took the papers relating to the business in his possession and claimed tenancy rights. That matter was contested between the parties and, ultimately, it was held that he was a tenant in the disputed accommodation and in this manner the petitioners lost the business as well as the accommodation. Both the petitioners were employed, one at Ghazipur and the other in Mines and Metrological Department, Jaipur. Their earnings were very small and their family was big. Consequently they wanted to start the business of welding and denting. The opposite party also occupied the premises which was just across the road and the present accommodation was lying vacant. A reply was filed by the respondents wherein they alleged that the petitioners' father was an old man and he could not carry on any business. The petitioners were both employed and their need was not bonafide. 3. The petitioners produced evidence in the shape of affidavits and copies of some of the documents to prove their bonafide need. They filed an affidavit which is Annexure 9' to the present petition and some other affidavits. Annexure 9' is the affidavit filed by Mani Ram Singh father of the petitioners. He has deposed that he was getting a pension of Rs. 25/65 p.m. alone. He had to marry his daughter and educate his son as well. He further pleaded that he had seven grand-sons and two grand-daughters. Annexure 9' is the affidavit filed by Mani Ram Singh father of the petitioners. He has deposed that he was getting a pension of Rs. 25/65 p.m. alone. He had to marry his daughter and educate his son as well. He further pleaded that he had seven grand-sons and two grand-daughters. Son, Raj Kumar, was employed in C.T. Grade as a teacher and his pay was Rs. 285/- p.m. The other son Harish Chand was an assistant in the Mines Department and his pay was so megre that he had to leave his family to live with the father. It was further deposed that the opposite party had purchased a building in the same vicinity across the road in the name of their mother, Smt. Chabi Raji and had started a workshop. In paragraph 12 it was sworn that he was aged 75 years and his health was sound and he could supervise the work without any difficulty. The other affidavits were also filed to support that case of the petitioners. Besides that the petitioners filed a copy of the affidavit of Chabi Raji, the copy of which is filed as Annexure 4' to the writ petition; that affidavit was filed in a case against one Ram Narain for release of the accommodation in the house opposite to the disputed accommodation. In paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit, Smt. Chabi Raji had deposed that her husband, Mannu and her sons Radhey Shyam and Sita Ram were all members of a Joint Hindu Family. They were doing denting and welding work jointly and, therefore she had purchased the disputed property. The tenant was sought to be evicted for extension of that business. 4. The Prescribed Authority inspected the disputed accommodation and the inspection report is Annexure 5' to the writ petition. From that report it is clear that Sita Ram was present in the workshop just across the road and machines for lathe denting etc. were there. He also inspected the disputed garage where he found that there was a cot and some motor parts. No equipment of welding or denting appeared to be there. It was locked at the time of his visit. 5. Under these circumstances the Prescribed Authority came to a finding that the tenant did not require the disputed accommodation at all and they were not using it for their business. No equipment of welding or denting appeared to be there. It was locked at the time of his visit. 5. Under these circumstances the Prescribed Authority came to a finding that the tenant did not require the disputed accommodation at all and they were not using it for their business. It also came to a finding that the landlord required the disputed accommodation for starting the business of welding and denting and if they were not given the disputed property, they will be put to greater loss. 6. The appellate authority reversed the judgment of the trial Court. It did not set aside the finding of the Prescribed Authority that the respondents had another accommodation across the road in their possession, where they were carrying on business. It also did not set aside the finding that the disputed accommodation was not being used for business purposes. It, however, allowed the appeal on the ground that both the petitioners were employed and the father of the petitioners by whom the business was to be looked after was an old man and therefore it could not be said that the petitioners required the accommodation bonafide. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it is clear from Annexure 9' to the writ petition and affidavit by the petitioner's father himself that he was getting a meagre pension of Rs. 25.65 and he had a big family and, therefore, it was impossible for him to meet the expenses. One of the sons was getting only Rs. 285/- per month; the other son had to leave his family with his father. There were sons, grand-children and daughters to be married. Under the circumstances the learned counsel argued that it could not be said that the need of the petitioners was bonafide. Without expressing any opinion it may be pointed out that in the case like the present one where the finding of both the authorities was that the accommodation was not being utilised for business purposes by the respondents, the hardship has to be compared should also be examined in that light. Ordinarily the landlord should have proved his need to a higher degree, but where the accommodation was not of much use to the tenant even a lesser need of the landlord could be said to be highly pressing. The requirements have to be balanced. 8. Ordinarily the landlord should have proved his need to a higher degree, but where the accommodation was not of much use to the tenant even a lesser need of the landlord could be said to be highly pressing. The requirements have to be balanced. 8. Rule 16(2)(b) framed under the Act provides : "Where the tenant has available with him, suitable accommodation to which he can shift his business without substantial loss there shall be greater justification for allowing the application". 9. In the instant case the tenant was not at all using the accommodation. He had not only a suitable accommodation available with him but he had already shifted his business there. There was no justification for disallowing the application. Amongst the tenants who are occupying accommodations at cheap rents, a tenancy is developing to retain the same even if not required by them. The Act is not meant to harass the landlords and deprive them of their right to utilise their property in a legitimate and reasonable manner. 10. There is yet another aspect of the case. As found by the Prescribed Authority at the time of his inspection, that the disputed accommodation was not being used at the time of his visit, and it was locked. Thereafter when it was opened only a cot and some motor parts were found there, obviously the equipment for the business of denting and welding was not there. The business that was being carried on and the machinery, had been removed the case could be covered under Section 12(1)(a) where the tenant has substantially removed his effects. However, I am not concerned with the same at this stage. 11. The requirement of the landlord has not been considered in the light in which it should have been. The requirement of the opposite party has also to be considered under Rule 16(2)(b). Under the circumstances the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. 12. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Varanasi dated 15th November, 1969 is quashed. He is directed to decide case in accordance with law and observations made above. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the case may now be decided by some officer other than the one who decided the appeal earlier. The judgment and order passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Varanasi dated 15th November, 1969 is quashed. He is directed to decide case in accordance with law and observations made above. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the case may now be decided by some officer other than the one who decided the appeal earlier. The appellate authority may consider the change in the circumstances of the parties, if any. No order as to cost.