JUDGMENT P. Dayal, J. - This writ petition has been filed by Husaini Dhobi for quashing the order dated 2091980 passed by llnd Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, contained in Annexure6, and for directing the llnd Additional District Judge, Lucknow, not to execute his order dated 2091980. 2. The dispute relates to a portion of house No. C42/62, situated at Nawab Asghar Husain Road, Lala Umrao Singh Park, Narhi, police station Hazratganj, Lucknow. The petitioner, Husaini Dhobi, has been a tenant in a garage and adjoining small kothari with door having no shutter since the year 1960 at the rate of Rs. 20/ per month. The opposite party No. 2 Thakur Avinashi Singh purchased this house on 1031966. The landlord opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 3 of the U. P. Act No. Ill of 1947 against the petitioner which application was subsequently converted as an application under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. He had pleaded in his application under Section 21 of the Act that he was earning his livelihood by taking up private tuitions and he grew old and he intended to start his own business in the garage which has been in the occupation of the petitioner, and that his wife collected Rs. 5,000/ for running that business by selling her flour mill at Hardwar. He further pleaded that the petitioner constructed a 'Bhatti' in the premises in question which was a source of nuisance and it has been unhygienic. The petitioner filed written statement contending that the need of the landlord has not been genuine and he wanted to enhance rent to which the petitioner did not agree, he being a poor washerman. 3. The prescribed authority dismissed the application of the landlord on 2151976 against which he filed an appeal which was allowed on 2091980, hence this writ petition. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved an amendment application for showing that he wanted to start a coaching institute in the disputed garage. 3. The prescribed authority dismissed the application of the landlord on 2151976 against which he filed an appeal which was allowed on 2091980, hence this writ petition. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved an amendment application for showing that he wanted to start a coaching institute in the disputed garage. The petitioner challenged the impugned judgment dated 2091980 on the ground that the landlord changed the nature of his case by amending his pleading and by pleading his case that he wanted to start a coaching institute in the disputed garage, the amendment was sought mala fide and it was not a business, one big room on the ground floor of the house in question is occupied by one K. P. Singh, a relative of the landlord, the provisions of Section 21 have been misconstrued by the appellate court, the need of the tenant was comparatively more than that of the landlord as the petitioner's family consists of ten members; and that residential premises could not be converted for commercial purposes. 5. The relevant portion of Section 21 reads as follows : "21 (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely (a) ... (b) ... Provided also that no application under Clause (a) shall be enter' tained (i) ... (ii) in the case of any residential building, for occupation for business purposes" It can be the landlord who has to move an application under Section 21 of the Act for eviction of a tenant. Therefore) it was wrongly contended on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that there was no bar for a landlord, to convert premises from residential to commercial purposes. Rather, the afore* said provision lays down that an application for occupation for business purposes by the landlord in the case of any residential building is not entertainable. It is under Section 20(2) (d) that a suit for ejectment of a tenant can be filed, if the tenant has, without the consent in writing of the landlord, used the same for purpose other than the purpose for which it was admitted to tenancy of the building or otherwise done any act which is inconsistent with such use. It is under Section 20(2) (d) that a suit for ejectment of a tenant can be filed, if the tenant has, without the consent in writing of the landlord, used the same for purpose other than the purpose for which it was admitted to tenancy of the building or otherwise done any act which is inconsistent with such use. In the Act the landlord has not been permitted to convert his building from a residential premises, for commercial use after getting it vacated from the tenant. In the instant case the petitioner has been using the garage for residential purpose along with his family. As such, an application for his eviction From the disputed premises on the ground of intended use of the disputed premises for commercial purpose is not maintainable. 6. It was held in the case of Dr. Bashiruddin v. District Judge, Butand Shahr (1978 All LJ 82) that the term "business" must be interpreted to mean a calling or profession and that a landlord could not evict his tenant to establish his own practice as Dental Surgeon in the tenanted premises. It was further held in the cited case that if the tenant was a washerman and he had kept 'Bhatti' in the verandah of the disputed premises, the dominant use of the house which consisted of a single room and the verandah in which ten persons resided was clearly residential. 7. The opposite party No. 2 is an aged person. He did not disclose at the initial stage that what business was intended to be started by him. It was during the pendency of the appeal that he disclosed that he would start a coaching institute in the disputed garage. One big room of an area of 12.6' x 10.6'has been in possession of his relative K. P. Singh apart from a small room which was used by his ton for studies in the ground floor. He has been residing in the first floor of the house in question. The disputed garage measures 9' x 8' only and the attached kothari is only 3' x 6'. The petitioner has a large family and is a washerman by profession while the landlord has enough accommodation with him and the petitioner shall be put to great hardship if he is evicted from the disputed garage. 8. The disputed garage measures 9' x 8' only and the attached kothari is only 3' x 6'. The petitioner has a large family and is a washerman by profession while the landlord has enough accommodation with him and the petitioner shall be put to great hardship if he is evicted from the disputed garage. 8. The opposite party No. 2 relied upon the case of Smt. Kamla Ahuja v. IV Addl. District Judge, Meerut, (1981 UP I RCG 199) in which case it was held that the court was only empowered to consider the element of need of bona fide (sic). This case is not helpful to opposite party No. 2 because it was his mala fide to subsequently plead that he wanted to start a coaching institute in the disputed garage, and his need for that disputed garage has not been bonafide. On the other hand the petitioner would face greater hardship if he is made to vacate the disputed garage. 9. For reasons discussed, this writ petition is fit to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 20.9.80. passed by the llnd Additional District Judge, Lucknow, contained in annexure 6 of the writ petition is quashed. Looking into the circumstances of the case no order is made as to costs.