JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This is a landlord's petition seeking release of the shop with his tenant, also for business purposes. The tenant has been in the shop which he occupies for over forty years. The petitioner-landlord took to the legal profession, but abandoned practise, and decided that he would set up a business of his own as a military contractor. He required the shop in question for this purpose. 2. The case which had initially been set up for release of the shop was both under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) to Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. In fact, it was the case of the landlord that he required the accommodation for the purposes of demolition and a consequential new construction as the building was in a dilapidated condition for using it for his personal need in furtherance of his business as a military contractor. 3. The case of the landlord that the building was in a dilapidated condition did not succeed as on behalf of the tenant also, an expert report had been filed to the effect that the building was not in a dilapidated condition and it does not need demolition for being constructed a new. 4. This part of the landlord's case, thus, failed. 5. What remained was whether the landlord required the accommodation in its present state for his need to set up his business as a military contractor. 6. The courts below returned a finding to the effect that to evict the tenant, who had occupied the shop since 1946, would cause him hardship as he has earned a goodwill in his business. While giving this finding the court below referred to an alternate shop available to landlord so that it would not cause him hardship if the release application was denied. On the facts, as presented before the courts below, the findings are that the father of the landlord, has sufficient accommodation next to the premises, the release of which was sought, which can be utilised by the landlord. The petitioner's father has a shop on the ground floor next to the accommodation in question and in addition to this, one room, a tin shed and a varandah, lying vacant on the first floor. The petitioner's father has a shop on the ground floor next to the accommodation in question and in addition to this, one room, a tin shed and a varandah, lying vacant on the first floor. The courts below came to the conclusion that there were sufficient accommodation available between the petitioner and his father from where the petitioner could initiate his business as a military contractor and that it would not be appropriate to evict the respondent tenant from the shop which he was using for the last forty years. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that amides pendency of the appeal he has made a proposal to the appellate court that the shop, which the tenant occupies, may be divided into half, so that the tenant may use end portion and the landlord the other, it is contended that this aspect has not been considered. This argument in itself is self-defeating inasmuch as the petitioner has no hesitation in reducing the accommodation of the tenant, when he has available with him an alternate accommodation, rightly did not disturb the possession of the tenant. 8. The petition is, thus, dismissed.