JUDGMENT S. C. Mathur, J. 1. This is a petition arising from proceedings for release under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972. 2. The accommodation in dispute was previously owned by one Moti Lal who sold the same in favour of the opposite party No. 3 who is employed in 'he Indian Telephone Industries, Rae Bareli. He claimed to be staying in a rented accommodation carrying a rent of Rs. 200/. The petitioner was a tenant of Moti Lal at the monthly rent of Rs. 45 and on purchase of the house by the Opp. Party No. 3, he became his tenant. 3. The Opp. Party No. 3, filed application for release on the plea that he required it for his own residence but he did not indicate the extent of the accommodation available to him in the rented house. He, of course, pleaded that his family comprised of six members,, self, wife, three children and father. He offered the rented accommodation to the tenant. 4. The tenant petitioner denied the need set up by the landlord and asserted that his own family comprised of himself* his wife, five sons and two daughters He further pleaded that with the leave of the landlord Moti Lal he had added one room to the tenanted accommodation at the cost of Rs. 5,000/with the stipulation that he will not be required to vacate the house till the sum of Rs. 5,000/ was paid to him. 5. The two authorities below have negatived the plea of construction of one room at the cost of Rs. 5000/ but have upheld the landlord's claim of personal requirement. 6. While considering the question of personal requirement the learned Additional District Judge rightly observed that it was surprising that the landlord did not indicate the extent to the accommodation available to him in the tenanted house. It appears that at this stage a statement was made on behalf of the landlord that the rented house comprised of only one room. The learned District Judge accepted the statement and proceeded to decide the appeal on that basis. The learned counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted that in the absence of any pleading, this statement could not be accepted by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge accepted the statement and proceeded to decide the appeal on that basis. The learned counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted that in the absence of any pleading, this statement could not be accepted by the learned District Judge. The learned counsel for the landlord points out that the petitioner has not challenged this factual observation of the learned District Judge in this petition. The most appropriate method for raising this plea by the petitioner was to apply for amendment of the application under section 21 of the Act. Even if I accept the argument of the learned counsel for the landlord that on account of failure of the petitioner to challenge that statement no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, the order of the learned District Judge will have to be quashed on another ground which is of the similar nature. 7. On behalf of the landlord it had not been pleaded that the tenant had an alternative accommodation available to him where he could shift to. It appears that a Commissioner had been appointed who reported that the tenant had an alternative accommodation available to Mm. This statement given in the Commissioner's report has been accepted by the learned District Judge for coming to the conclusion that alternative accommodation was available to the tenant This conclusion has been challenged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. To what extent the availability of alternative accommodation has influenced the judgement of the learned District Judge cannot be assessed by this Court On account of this flaw, the judgment of the court below will have to be quashed, 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the learned 1st Additional District Judge dated 16.7.1986, annexure 5S is hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the learned 1st Additional District Judge on 10.4.1987 for taking a date for further hearing in the appeal which will be restored to its original number. It will be open to the landlord to apply for amendment of his application under section 21 of U, P, Act 13 of 1972, It shall also be open to the parties to adduce additional evidence in support of additional pleas which may be raised before the learned District Judge. It will be open to the landlord to apply for amendment of his application under section 21 of U, P, Act 13 of 1972, It shall also be open to the parties to adduce additional evidence in support of additional pleas which may be raised before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge shall try to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, say within four months of appearance before him.