JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - Petitioner Azad Kumar Gupta has directed this petition against the eviction order dated 1-10-1985 passed against him in proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. The dispute in the petition partains to a godown situate at Aminabad, Lucknow. Landlord's case was that he required the said godown for setting-up his son in business. According to the landlord the son was unemployed. The two courts below have recorded concurrent findings to the affect that the petitioner's son is unemployed and therefore, the accommodation in dispute is required for setting him up in the business. This finding of fact does not suffer from any apparent error. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the application moved by the petitioner was filed under clause (b) of Section 21 (1) of the Act and compliance has not been made of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. Compliance of Rule 17 is required in respect of application made under Clause (b) of Section 21 (1). Such compliance is not required where application is made under Clause (a). A copy of application under Section 21 is on record as Annexure No. 1 from a perusal of this application it would appear that the landlord first of all indicates that the accommodation in dispute was required by him for setting-up his son in business. Thereafter as a passing reference it was stated that the accommodation in question was quite dilapidated and would require renovation. It is on this basis that the learned Counsel submitted that the application was under Clause (b) and therefore, compliance of Rule 17 was necessary. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel. The application was under Clause (a) and only as passing reference it was stated that the godown was in dilapidated condition and would require renovation. In the circumstances, order of eviction cannot be faulted on account of non-compliance of Rule 17. 4. Next submission of the learned Counsel is that the court below has not - considered the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner. It is pointed out that on behalf of the petitioner two affidavits had been filed, One of the petitioner himself and the other of Daulat Ram Arora. 4. Next submission of the learned Counsel is that the court below has not - considered the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner. It is pointed out that on behalf of the petitioner two affidavits had been filed, One of the petitioner himself and the other of Daulat Ram Arora. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the Prescribed Authority wrongly appreciated the petitioner's evidence as the evidence filed on behalf of the landlord. An argument to this affect was made before the learned District Judge who accepted the same. I have also been taken through the order of the Prescribed Authority where the affidavit of Daulat Ram Arora has been referred to as the affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord. Learned District Judge has appreciated the error and thereafter confirmed the finding on bona fide requirement. The error in the order of Prescribed Authority, therefore stands corrected. 5. It is then stated that after correcting the error of the Prescribed Authority, learned District Judge should have proceeded to consider the affidavit evidence of the petitioner himself but this has not been done. Learned District Judge may not have specifically referred to the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner but the pleas raised through them have been considered and findings have been recorded. One of the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner was that situation of the disputed godown was such that it could not be used for running a shop therein. It was, of course, pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the godown in question was situated in a narrow lane of 2' wide and the same could be used only as a godown and not for running a shop. This question has been dealt with by the learned District Judge by observing that it is for the landlord to decide whether he can run a shop in a premises situated in a lane which is not more than 2' wide. With this observation of the learned District Judge, I agree. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner's evidence has not been considered by the learned District Judge. 6. It was lastly submitted that comparison of hardship done by the learned District Judge is faulty. With this observation of the learned District Judge, I agree. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner's evidence has not been considered by the learned District Judge. 6. It was lastly submitted that comparison of hardship done by the learned District Judge is faulty. Learned District Judge has observed that the landlord will suffer greater-hardship in as much as his son is unemployed and he has to be set-up in business while there will be no hardship to the petitioner tenant who is not using the shop effectively as there was no much of material stored therein at the time of local inspection by the Commissioner. Learned District Judge has further observed that the petitioner has not indicated how he cannot store his goods in the shop which is in his tenancy and which is being used as godown by him. This comparison of hardship does not suffer from any apparent arrear. 7. It was submitted that the petitioner may be allowed some time to vacate the accommodation. From the findings recorded by learned District Judge and from the Commissioner's report it is apparent that the petitioner is not making affective use of the godown. From the Commissioner's report it appears that the roof of the accommodation in dispute has broken. Obviously, such an accommodation cannot be used effectively for storing goods. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to Paragraph 8 of the' Commissioner's report, Annexure No. 3, for submitting that the accommodation is being actually used by the petitioner for storing goods. From Paragraph 8 of the said Report it appears that at the time of inspection there were eight tom bags in the godown in question and five old wooden-boxes. Apart from these items there was only one bag of makhana and one bag of Sendha salt. From this it would appear that the only marketable commodity that had been stored in the godown were one makhana bag and one bag of Sendha salt. The petitioner has not given measurements of the shop in his possession from which it could be gathered that these two bags could not be kept in the shop. For the reasons stated herein, I am not inclined to give any time to the petitioner to vacate the godown in question. 8. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine. For the reasons stated herein, I am not inclined to give any time to the petitioner to vacate the godown in question. 8. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged.