JUDGMENT S. Sagir Ahmad, J. - Opposite parties 1 and 2 who were the owners of the accommodation in question filed application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the ground that it was bonafide required by them for their own occupation. This application was contested by the petitioners but the Prescribed Authority by his judgment and order dated October, 24, 1977 contained in Annexure 6 allowed the application and released the accommodation in favour of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge which was ultimately transferred to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, an application dated January 11, 1979 was filed by the petitioners by which it was brought to the notice of the appellate Court that opposite parties 1 and 2 had already constructed three rooms in the court-yard (angan) & therefore, their need, if any, stood satisfied. This application was opposed by opposite parties 1 and 2 who filed their reply on February 26, 1979 in which they pleaded that there was an oral partition between them under which the eastern portion of the building in question had fallen to the share of opposite party No. 1 while the western portion had gone to opposite party No. 2. It was thereafter that the need of Ram Kishore who is opposite party No. 1 alone was considered. The appellate Court found that his need was genuine and bonafide and dismissed the appeal by the judgment and order dated March 10, 1979 contained in Annexure 2. The petitioners have now come to this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitions has been opposed and a counter-affidavit has been filed. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder-affidavit. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge would show that he was influenced by offer of one room which was made by the opposite party No. 1 to the petitioners. The lower appellate Court has observed as follows :- "Further the landlord has offered to give one room in the house of his father-in-law i.e., in house No. 567/170K. The lower appellate Court has observed as follows :- "Further the landlord has offered to give one room in the house of his father-in-law i.e., in house No. 567/170K. This house also practically belongs to the wife of Appellant No. 1 and, therefore, he can easily provide alternative accommodation to the tenants in that house. In view of this offer, for an alternative accommodation by Ram Kishore to the tenants his need is to be considered sympathetically........ Thus, considering the comparative need of the parties and likely hardship, I am of the view that the need of the landlord Sri Ram Kishore for the premises in question is much greater and is also genuine and bonafide. Further as Ram Kishore is also offering alternative room to the tenants in the house No. 567/170K, the need of the landlord is to be accepted to be genuine and greater. Thus, I am also of the view that the tenants-appellants be evicted from the premises in question and it be released in favour of the landlords. Therefore, I see no force in this appeal and it fails." 4. Under Rule 16 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the claim of the landlord for release of a building is to be construed liberally if he offers an alternative accommodation to the tenant. Clause (f) of Rule 16(1) which contains the relevant provision lays down as under :- "Where the landlord offers to the tenant alternative accommodation reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family the landlord's claim for release of the building under tenancy shall be construed liberally." 5. The alternative accommodation which is offered by the landlord to the tenant must be reasonably suitable to the need of the tenant and his family. It is then alone that the landlord's claim can be construed liberally. It is not that a mere offer of an alternative accommodation is sufficient for the need of the landlord to be construed liberally. The accommodation which is offered to the tenant must be reasonably suitable to his need and to the needs of his family. If this essential requirement is wanting the offer cannot be considered to be an offer as contemplated by Rule 16(1)(f) of the Rules. 6. The accommodation which is offered to the tenant must be reasonably suitable to his need and to the needs of his family. If this essential requirement is wanting the offer cannot be considered to be an offer as contemplated by Rule 16(1)(f) of the Rules. 6. In the instant case, the learned Additional District Judge was swayed away merely by the offer made by the opposite party No. 1 to the petitioner for one room in another building which admittedly belonged to his father-in-law. The learned Additional District Judge has not considered the vital aspect whether the accommodation offered to the petitioners was reasonably suitable to their needs and to the needs of their family. 7. Since the impact of Rule 16(1)(f) has not been considered by the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment passed by him cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated March 10, 1979 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Lucknow now which is contained in Annexure 8 is hereby quashed and the appeal is remanded to him for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own costs. The parties shall appear before the learned Additional District Judge on January 7, 1985. The appeal shall be disposed of expeditiously.