JUDGMENT K.S. Varma, J. - In Bhinga town, District Bahraich, opposite party No. 2 is the owner of a building known as Sarai Bhinga. In front of the said building there are 14 shops out of which, he has sold three shops to Jagan Nath, Deen Dayal and Onkar and the remaining shops are in possession of his tenants. Out of these remaining 11 shops, seven shops are in the tenancy of the Petitioners who have been carrying on business for the last 24 or 25 years. Opposite party No. 2 filed an application u/s 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for the release of the shops in his favour as he wanted to construct a cinema hall after demolishing the shops. The Petitioners filed objections against the application on the ground that the shops were in their possession for the last 25 years in which they were carrying on their business and the said business was the only source of their livelihood. It was alleged that opposite party No. 2 had no genuine need to construct a cinema hall. It was also alleged that the application for release has been made to put pressure on the Petitioners with mala fide motives. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 27-10-1979 rejected the application filed by opposite party No. 2 on the ground that the need of opposite party No. 2 was not genuine. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal u/s 22 of the Act. The appeal was heard by opposite party No. 1 who allowed it by order dated 10-3-1981. A certified copy of the order has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure 5 would indicate that in allowing the appeal, opposite party No. 1 was greatly influenced by the fact that after the abolition of Zamindari the income of opposite party No. 2 had diminished, the agricultural land held by him was declared surplus under the provisions of the Ceiling Act and in these circumstances opposite party No. 2 has to augment his income by starting some other business. In this background, the Court below held that the need of opposite party No. 2 for constructing a cinema hall is genuine and if for the construction of a cinema hall the shops have to be demolished, the same may be demolished by the landlord so that he may be able to carry on the business of exhibiting pictures in the cinema hall. Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 provides for the release of accommodation in favour of the landlord. The said Section in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of the controversy between the parties, is reproduced below: "The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy... if it is satisfied that.... (a) 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...." 2. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is the application of opposite party No. 2 u/s 21 of the Act. In paragraph 5 of the petition it has been stated that opposite party No. 2 bonafide needed demolition of the shops so that he may construct a cinema hall and carry on the business of exhibiting pictures. The Petitioner also states that he has applied for permission to construct a cinema hall. Annexure 2 is the copy of the objections filed by the Petitioners. In the objections it has been stated that the Petitioners have been carrying on business for the last several years and that the need of opposite party No. 2 for eviction of the tenants for the construction of a cinema hall is not genuine. 3. The question that requires consideration is whether opposite party No. 2 bonafide needs the shops in question for demolition so that a cinema hall may be constructed in accordance with the specifications prescribed by the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2 dated 27-8-1981 indicates that opposite party No. 2 has obtained sanction for construction of a cinema hall from the District Magistrate who has laid certain conditions for the same. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No. 2 dated 27-8-1981 indicates that opposite party No. 2 has obtained sanction for construction of a cinema hall from the District Magistrate who has laid certain conditions for the same. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 that he has fulfilled all the conditions for obtaining the sanction and permission from the District Magistrate and the construction work of the cinema hall is going a on as according to the permission granted by the District Magistrate the cinema hall is to be constructed within a year. Annexure B-1 is the permission granted by the District Magistrate to opposite party No. 2 to construct a cinema hall. Annexure B-1 clearly indicates that if the shops in front are not demolished, the licence for exhibiting pictures will not be granted. The question that arises is whether in the circumstances of the case permission should be granted to opposite party No. 2 to evict the Petitioners from the shops in question so that a cinema hall may be constructed by opposite party No. 2 in accordance with the specification provided by the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. It is not in dispute that income from Zamindari property was the main source of livelihood of opposite party No. 2. The Zamindari has been abolished and the agricultural land belonging to him has been declared surplus. If in these circumstances opposite party No. 2 desires to improve his financial position by starting a business, it has to be seen whether such a request for the release of the accommodation in question is genuine or not. Section 21 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1973 provides that the authorities constituted under the Act have to be satisfied whether the need of opposite party No. 2 for the construction of a cinema hall to augment his income after demolishing the accommodation in possession of the tenants is bonafide or not. Opposite party No. 1 has come to a finding of fact that in view of the fact that the income of opposite party No. 2 has considerably diminished on account of abolition of Zamindari and on account of agricultural land having been declared surplus, the need of opposite party No. 2 to augment his income by some other source is a genuine and bonafide requirement. In Mst. In Mst. Bega Begum and Others Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, AIR 1979 SC 272 bonafide need of the landlord for starting new business came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in a case arising out of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (34 of 1966). At page 279 of the report the Supreme Court observed as follows: Being the owners of the house they cannot be denied eviction and be compelled to live below the poverty line merely to enable the Respondents to carry on their flourishing hotel business at the cost of the Appellants. 4. The Supreme Court further observed that if the need of the landlords was genuine and reasonable and the premises which belonged to them were required for augmenting their income as the income so far received by them was not sufficient for them, that would be a case of real requirement or genuine need. The Supreme Court was interpreting the word "reasonable requirement" appearing in Section 11(1)(h) of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The views expressed by the learned Judges while interpreting the words reasonable requirement' in that case would apply to the case in hand as the provisions of Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are substantially the same as of Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The Supreme Court has emphasised that what is required to be established in such cases is that the accommodation is needed by the landlord for his own use and that the need is bonafide. 5. The position in the instant case is that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court is that the need of opposite party No. 2 for the construction of a cinema hall is genuine for augmentation of his income. It is also in evidence that major part of the cinema hall has been constructed but the permission to exhibit pictures is being withheld in view of the fact that requirement in regard to demolition of the shops in question as intimated in Annexure B-1 has not been complied with. On behalf of opposite party No. 2 reliance was placed on Rule 8 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. On behalf of opposite party No. 2 reliance was placed on Rule 8 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. The said rule lays down certain conditions relating to the means of exit from the building and one of the means of exit, according to it, shall have a clear width of 35' including the footpath and shall be a thoroughfare. It has been argued that the condition mentioned in Annexure B-1 relating to demolition of shops has been inserted by the authorities concerned in compliance with the requirement of Rule 8 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. At any rate, the condition imposed by Annexure B-1 is that the licence to exhibit pictures shall be granted only if the shops in question are demolished. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the legality of Annexure B-1. I repeatedly called upon the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to show how the condition imposed by Annexure B-1 is contrary to U.P. Cinematograph Rules 1951 but the learned Counsel was unable to point out that the condition imposed by Annexure B-1 is invalid and is contrary to U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. 6. There is another aspect of the matter which has a material bearing on the case. The requirement regarding demolition of the shops in question is a condition for the grant of licence to exhibit pictures. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was unable to satisfy the Court that such a condition was illegal. As a matter of fact a perusal of U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 indicates that such a condition may validly be imposed. Once it is held that the need of opposite party No. 2 to construct a cinema hall is bonafide and genuine in the sense that he has to augment his income by sources other than those which were available to him before the abolition of Zamindari the shops have to be demolished before opposite party No. 2 may be granted a licence for exhibiting the pictures. The requirement contained in paragraph 1 of Annexure B-1 is a requirement imposed by a statutory provision. In this view of the matter, apart from any hardship to any of the parties, the order of demolition of the shops in question has to be given effect to before opposite party No. 2 may be able to get a licence for exhibiting pictures. In this view of the matter, apart from any hardship to any of the parties, the order of demolition of the shops in question has to be given effect to before opposite party No. 2 may be able to get a licence for exhibiting pictures. In my opinion, the shops in question are bonafide required by the landlord for demolition to enable him to carry on the business for which he has to obtain a licence under the Cinematograph Rules. 7. In view of what I have observed above, it is not necessary to go into the question about the relative hardship of the landlord and the tenant but since the point has been argued at length, I propose to deal with it. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioners that they have been carrying on business in shops in question for more than 20 years and this fact should have been considered by the appellate authority regard being had to Rule 16(2)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. 8. It appears from a perusal of the judgment rendered by the appellate Court that he has considered the need of opposite party No. 2 for the release of the accommodation on the ground that he has to augment his income by sources other than those which were available to him so far. It has also been found that the need of opposite party No. 2 for augmenting his income by constructing a cinema hall for exhibition of pictures is genuine. The fact that the Petitioners are in possession of the shops in question for a number of years is clear from the record and there is no reason to doubt that the appellate Court did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter while coming to a finding that the need of opposite party No. 2 for construction of a cinema hall was genuine. The fact that licence for exhibiting pictures could be granted only when conditions mentioned in Annexure B-l were fulfilled, was also before the appellate Court. It thus becomes clear that unless the shops in question are demolished, the Petitioner would not get licence to exhibit pictures in the cinema hall. The fact that licence for exhibiting pictures could be granted only when conditions mentioned in Annexure B-l were fulfilled, was also before the appellate Court. It thus becomes clear that unless the shops in question are demolished, the Petitioner would not get licence to exhibit pictures in the cinema hall. In this background it cannot be said that the appellate Court did not consider the element of hardship which attended the eviction of the Petitioners from the shop in question. Moreover, the principles mentioned in Mst. Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan (supra) clearly support the conclusion reached by the appellate Court. 9. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 Mr. L.P. Shukla conceded that since the Petitioners are going to be uprooted from their business, his client is prepared to pay to each of the tenants a sum of Rs. 600/- as compensation for dispossession from the shops in question. There are seven Petitioners in the writ petition and each one of them would be entitled to Rs. 600/- as compensation for dispossession from the shops in question. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The order of eviction shall be executed only if each of the Petitioners is paid Rs. 600/- by opposite party No. 2 by way of compensation for ejectment from the shop in question. Costs of this petition shall be borne by the parties.