JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad J. 1. The petitioners who are the owners of the shop in dispute, have filed this writ petition against the judgment and order dated 881980 passed by the District Judge, Barabanki. 2. Opposite party No. 2 is the petitioner's tenant. The petitioners filed an application u/s 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of opposite party No. 2 from the said shop, on the ground that the shop was required bonafide by the petitioners to enable Taj Mohammad, the grandson of Smt. Rahiman (petitioner no. 1) to start his own business of battery repairing in that shop. 3. The application was contested by opposite party no. 2 who pleaded that the shop was not required bona fide by the petitioners. The matter was considered by the prescribed authority, who by his judgment andorder dated 22121979 contained in annexure 4, allowed the application and directed the eviction of opposite party no. 2 from the shop in question. Opposite party no. 2 then filed an appeal which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. The appeal was allowed and the judgment passed by the prescribed authority was set aside. The application of the petitioners for the release of the shop in question was dismissed. The petitioners have now come up in writ petition. 4. Sri P.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the application for the release of the accommodation in question has been rejected on two grounds by the appellate court. The first ground related to the inaction of the petitioners in applying for the release of another shop which was in the tenancy of Chheda and which had become available for release on thedeath of that person. In this regard it was stated by Sri Mathur that the petitioners were not obliged to make an application for release of that shop because by that time the petitioners might not have decided to settle Taj Mohammad aforesaid in the battery repairing business. In this regard it was stated by Sri Mathur that the petitioners were not obliged to make an application for release of that shop because by that time the petitioners might not have decided to settle Taj Mohammad aforesaid in the battery repairing business. I am not prepared to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, because it is not the case of the petitioners that at the time when the shop in occupation of Sri Chheda had become available for release, they had not decided about the business that Taj Mohammad would carry on in future. 5. Sri Mathur then contended that the application u/s 21 of the Act could not have been rejected by the learned District Judge on the ground that Taj Mohammad had not received any technical education. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the word technical education should be given a liberal meaning so as to cover the education or the training received privately. It is contended by him that in the instant case it was pleaded by the petitioners that Taj Mohammad had received the training in battery repairing in a shop of another mechanic and that he had sufficiently learnt the trade to carry on his own independent business. The case of this nature should also be held to be covered by the word 'technical education.' In my opinion, this question need not be decided inthe present writ petition. Rule 16 (2) (d) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Sub clause (d) of Clause (2) of Rule 16 reads as follows: Where a son or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant of the landlord has, after the building was originally let out, completed his or her technical education and is not employed in Government service; and wants to engage in self employment, his or her need shall be given due consideration. A perusal of the above clause would indicate that it would be applicable where a son or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant of the landlord has completed his or her technical education and is not employed in an); Government Service and wants to engage in self employment. A perusal of the above clause would indicate that it would be applicable where a son or unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant of the landlord has completed his or her technical education and is not employed in an); Government Service and wants to engage in self employment. The clause being restricted to the aforesaid persons, it would not apply to any other person. 6. The petitioners had applied for the release of the shop 'on the ground that their grandson Taj Mohammad was to be established in business. Since Taj Mohammad does not fall within the category of the persons contemplated by clause (d) of Rule 16 (2) which has been quoted above, the petitioners cannot legally contend that their need should be construed liberally. The question whether the petitioners bonafide require the shop in question stands decided conclusively by the findings of fact recorded by the learned District Judge, who has found it as a fact that the shop which was in occupation of Chheda (since deceased) is now in the possession of the petitioners and that the proposed business can be started by Taj Mohammad in that shop. 7. No other point was pressed. 8. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. (Petition dismissed)