JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the tenant against the judgment of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad dated 23.10.1982 allowing the appeal filed by landlord-respondent No. 2, against the decision of the Prescribed Authority, dismissing the landlord's application under section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The brief facts for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition are that respondent No. 2 Kanti Prasad filed an application under section 21 of the Act for getting the shop in dispute released in his favour on the ground that he wanted to start business ofiron, hardware etc. It was stated that the shop in dispute has been allotted to the petitioner in a partition which has been effected between the brothers. According to the respondent landlord, there was no other shop in his possession in which he could start his business. As far as the tenant petitioner is concerned, it was stated that he has a house on Ramte Ram Road where he can easily carry on his medical profession of doctor in the front portion. By means of an amendment application the landlord also took up the case that the tenant has constructed a clinic in 11-B/5 Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad in the name of his wife Smt. Krishna Kumari where he can shift his clinic. 3. The aforesaid application was contested by the tenant on the ground that no partition had taken place as has been alleged by the landlord and the theory of the partition has been set up to make a ground for release of the shop in dispute. It was alleged that since all the landlords having not been impleaded in the application, the application is not maintainable. On the question of bona fide requirement it was stated that the respondent was already doing several business and was also in possession of several other accommodations where he can carry on the proposed business. 4. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 23.10 1980 rejected the application moved by the landlord after recording findings to the effect that the landlord has proved that he is the sole owner and landlord of the shop in dispute on the basis of the partition affected between his brothers. 4. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 23.10 1980 rejected the application moved by the landlord after recording findings to the effect that the landlord has proved that he is the sole owner and landlord of the shop in dispute on the basis of the partition affected between his brothers. However on the question of bona fide requirement, the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the landlord has not been able to prove that he has no other shop available for starting his business. On the question of comparative hardship it was held that the residential accommodation constructed by the tenant was in residential area and that the tenant has got no other place to carry on his profession except the shop in dispute. 5. In appeal the appellate court upheld the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority in so far as the landlord being the sole owner and landlord of the shop in dispute was concerned. However on the question of bona fide requirement and comparative hardship, the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority had been upset and it has been held that the shop in dispute was required bona fide by the landlord and that the tenant can start his clinic from his house situated on Ramte Ram Road, Ghaziabad. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the IIIrd Additional District Judge 23.10.1982 firstly on the ground that the finding recorded under the impugned order that the respondent No. 2 is the sole owner and landlord of the shop in dispute suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention in asmuch as a bare perusal of the order of the Prescribed Authority would show that the tenant himself filed receipt (33-Ga) dated 12.6.1978. In the aforesaid receipt the name of the owner has been shown as Kanti Prasad. In my opinion, this receipt which is admittedly of a date after the passing of the partition decree clearly goes to show that even the petitioner-tenant was accepting the partition and was treating the respondent No. 2 Kanti Prasad as the sole owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. In my opinion, this receipt which is admittedly of a date after the passing of the partition decree clearly goes to show that even the petitioner-tenant was accepting the partition and was treating the respondent No. 2 Kanti Prasad as the sole owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, from the recital of this receipt given in the appellate judgment wanted to argue that the name of Kanti Prasad has been mentioned only as one of the owners of the shop. In my opinion, from the reading of the judgment of the Prescribed Authority and of the IIIrd Additional District Judge it becomes clear that the receipt only mentioned the name of Kanti Prasad alone. The copy of the receipt has not been filed in this writ petition to prove that the receipt contained the name of any other person as owner of the shop. The finding on this question, in my opinion, has been rightly recorded by the two authorities. 7. It has then been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding on the question of bona fide requirement was recorded by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the petitioner-tenant and it has been set aside by the lower appellate court without specifically recording a finding as to whether other accommodation were available with the landlord and whether they were suitable for carrying on his new venture. I have carefully perused the two judgments on this question. The Prescribed Authority had recorded a finding that the landlord has not proved that he has not got another accommodation where he can start his business. This finding was recorded on the basis that the landlord had not specified as to whether the proposed business could be started in the shop where firm Gupta Traders is carrying on business. The circumstance that the petitioner was owner of other buildings and he had not proved that either those buildings were not available to him or they were not suited for starting his new venture was also taken against him. The circumstance that the petitioner was owner of other buildings and he had not proved that either those buildings were not available to him or they were not suited for starting his new venture was also taken against him. The appellate authority while upsetting this finding has at one place held that even if it is believed that some of the other properties which were also owned by the landlord and his brothers, it can not be held that the same are available to the appellant for starting his business and that the same are suitable for doing the said business intended to be started by the appellate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the three supplementary affidavits which were filed before the Prescribed Authority which has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit, as Annexure 'I', II and III. From these affidavits it becomes clear that the tenant had given the properties of which the petitioner was the owner. In respect of one of the buildings, i.e., double storeyed building in occupation of tailors it was mentioned that the same has been rented out to them in March 1917. In my opinion, the tenant having indicated the building which according to him were in possession of the landlord, the burden clearly lay on the landlord to have shown in respect of each building as to whether he was the owner or not, and also whether they were in vacant state or nut. The initial burden of proving that the building was required bona fide by the landlord is on him and it is he who has to establish before the court that he has got any alternative accommodation in his possession where he can start his own venture. The lower appellate court, in my opinion, has thus committed an error in recording the finding on the question of bona fide requirement in favour of the landlord. It is however, being made clear that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the landlord wants to start a new business is not being set aside and is being affirmed. The lower appellate court while deciding the appeal again would address himself to be question as to whether there are other properties available to the landlord in vacant state where the landlord can start his business. The lower appellate court while deciding the appeal again would address himself to be question as to whether there are other properties available to the landlord in vacant state where the landlord can start his business. According to the case of the landlord the shop in which the business is being carried on in the name of Gupta traders no substantial business is being carried on. The lower appellate court shall also take into account the fact as to whether the new venture of the landlord can be started in the building occupied by Gupta Traders, specially in view of the fact that business carried on by Gupta Traders is of a very nominal nature. According to the affidavits filed on behalf of the tenant in respect of one double storeyed building it has been mentioned that the same has been let out to tailors in 1977. In case the lower appellate court finds the aforesaid averment of the tenant to be true, the circumstance that the shop was let out only a year before the making of the present application under section 21 of the Act shall also be taken into account. It is, however, being made clear that the finding on the question of bona fide requirement is to be arrived at by the appellate authority independetly after applying its mind again to the evidence on the record. 8. So far as the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on the question of comparative hardship is concerned, the same has also to be set aside inasmuch as it will be inter-linked with the question as to whether the landlord has an alternative accommodation where he can start his business. Moreover, a bare perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court shows that the finding recorded against the tenant that he can start his clinic in his house situated at Ramte Ram. Road has been arrived at without recording a specific finding as to whether the running of clinic permitted in that locality. It is being made clear that the lower appellate court shall be at liberty to call for any fresh evidence and also allow the parties opportunity to Fad further evidence in case they make out a case for doing so. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. It is being made clear that the lower appellate court shall be at liberty to call for any fresh evidence and also allow the parties opportunity to Fad further evidence in case they make out a case for doing so. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the lower appellate court dated 23.10.1982 is set aside. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad is directed to decide the appeal again in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. A certified copy of this judgment shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week from today. Toe learned counsel for the respondent has made a statement that the judgment shall be produced within two weeks from today. The appellate court decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order before him.