JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. 1. The petitioners are the landlords of a residential house which was let out to opposite parties 2 & 3. They made an application under Section 21(1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that they needed the accommodation for their own residence. The application was contested by the tenants but was allowed by the Prescribed, Authority. On the tenants' filing an appeal the appellate court took the view that the petitioners should have applied Under Section 16 of the Act and riot under Section 21. As such the appeal was allowed and the application under Section 2I was dismissed.' 2. Aggrieved by this appellate judgment, the petitioners have come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the tenantsopposite parties but no one appears today on their behalf. I have accordingly heard the petitioners counsel, Sri H.S. Sahai exparte. Sri Sahai has taken me through the pleadings and the judgments of the Prescribed Authority and the. Additional District Judge. 3. The learned appellate court has held that Section 16 was attracted because of the petitioners' pleading that the opposite parties were not living in the house for the last several years. One of them was in Zambia and the other was living at Dehradun. Only some strangers were living in the premises. This implied that a deemed vacancy had occurred within the meaning of Section 12 of the Act. Accordingly the remedy to the petitioners was only under Section 16. 4. It is noteworthy that the case was contested by the tenants before the Prescribed Authority. It was thus not a case in which the tenants and admittedly ceased to have any concern with the house. It was, therefore, surprising that an argument pressed on behalf of the tenants that the house was vacant in the eye of law, should have been accepted by the appellate court for throwing out the landlords' petition under Section 21. If the tenants had really ceased to occupy, the accommodation and the house was to be deemed to be vacant, then they had no locus standi to maintain the appeal and the appeal should have been dismissed on that ground, instead of being allowed. If the tenants had really ceased to occupy, the accommodation and the house was to be deemed to be vacant, then they had no locus standi to maintain the appeal and the appeal should have been dismissed on that ground, instead of being allowed. Indeed in Para 7 of the counteraffidavit filed in this court also, the tenants have stated that their case was that the deponent, namely, opposite party no.2, had temporarily gone to Zambia on deputation by the Government of India for a fixed term and that his luggage was kept therein and his daughters stayed in the house along with his real elder sister and her sons. In view of this assertion of the opposite parties, the tenants' plea which has found favour with the appellate court was clearly untenable. The tenants could not be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath. 5. Morever, even if a tenant may induct some outsiders in a building and as such, proceedings may possibly be initialed under Section 16 on the ground of deemed vacancy having occurred under Section 12, it does not follow that a suit on the ground of subletting cannot lie under Section 20 or that an application under Section 21 on the ground of balance of hardships cannot lie at the instance of the landlord. It is open to the landlord to pursue either of the remedies and one cannot be defeated merely on the ground that another remedy was also available to him. 6. In the result the writ petition is allowed exparte and the appellate judgment, Annexure 5 to the petition, is hereby quashed. The appeal shall be admitted by the appellate court at its original number and decided afresh according to law. 7. No orders as to costs. (Petition allowed)