JUDGMENT M.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioner is a tenant of shop No. 622, situated at Subhash Chowk, Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar. 2. Respondent No. 4, Sudhir Kumar Bansal became the owner and landlord on account of a partition decree dated 22-10-1971 passed in Suit No. 74 of 1971, Ashok Kumar Bansal v. Brij Bhushan Bansal and others. He belongs to a family of business. During his minority his mother had executed a rent note in favour of the petitioner for a period of ten years, which expired on 28-10-1981. 3. After the expiry of said period, he did not vacate the premises and ultimately an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 for release of the premises in the year 1985. The opposite parties wanted to establish a general marchandise and crockery business in the said shop. 4. The tenant, Satish Kumar, was carrying on confectionary and biscuits business in the said shop. It could be shifted to shops available at Railway Road, Dayal Market (Bara Bazar) and Naya Bazar where same business of confectionary and biscuits was carried on by others. These three places were suitable for the business of tenant. The said application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that need of the opposite parties was not bonafide and genuine. There was no agreement at the time of letting that he will vacate the shop after the expiry of 10 years. Sudhir Kumar was still carrying on his studies and appearing in the Intermediate Examination as a private candidate. He had no desire to shift his business. His father was running a kerosene oil and diesel business along with him. 5. He has been carrying on the business of confectionary and biscuits since 1971. HE has earned good-will. It was the only source of livelihood for his family. In case the shop is released, greater hardship would be caused to him and to his family. No shop was available to him at the places mentioned in the application on the same rent, which he was paying for this shop. 6. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the opposite parties was bonafide and genuine but while considering the comparative hardship he recorded a finding that the tenant will suffer a greater hardship in case the shop was released. 6. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the opposite parties was bonafide and genuine but while considering the comparative hardship he recorded a finding that the tenant will suffer a greater hardship in case the shop was released. The tenant has earned a good-will. The shop was the only source of livelihood. The applicants were economically strong. It was on this finding that the application for release under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was rejected. The landlords filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act. 7. BOTH the parties have filed additional evidence in the form of affidavits before the appellate authority. It was stated by the tenant that the opposite party No. 3 had constructed 8 shops in which he can carry on his business and the need if any has ceased to exist. In reply the opposite parties also filed an affidavit stating that these shops were not suitable for the business of general merchandise and crockery but were suitable for confectionary and biscuits business. He gave an offer that the tenant may choose any one of the 8 shops. He was prepared to provide an alternative accommodation. This was not acceptable to the tenant. 8. The IInd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, by an order dated 18-7-1985 has allowed the appeal and the accommodation was released in favour of the landlord, against which the present writ petition has been filed. Heard Sri K. K. Shangloo, counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Dayal, counsel for the opposite parties. 9. While considering an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act the authorities have to consider the following :- (1) Whether need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine; (ii) have to record finding on the comparative hardship. 10. The finding of the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine is final as the tenant did not challenge it nor the same has been set aside by the appellate authority. This finding is no more open for consideration in this writ petition. The only point to be considered in this case is about the comparative hardship. 11. It has come on the record that shops were available at Railway Road, Dayal Market (Bara Bazar) and Naya Bazar. Availability of these shops at these places were not denied by the tenant. This finding is no more open for consideration in this writ petition. The only point to be considered in this case is about the comparative hardship. 11. It has come on the record that shops were available at Railway Road, Dayal Market (Bara Bazar) and Naya Bazar. Availability of these shops at these places were not denied by the tenant. Only this much has been said that he will not get a shop at these places on the same rent which he was paying for the shop in dispute. Offer of the landlords to the tenant to accept any one of the 8 shops built by him was also not acceptable to him. IT was contended on behalf of the tenant that his financial position was not such that he could take another shop at a higher rent. He refused to shift his business to any one of the above mentioned shops offered by the opposite parties on the ground that he has earned good-will. On the other hand he insisted that the opposite parties may start their business in one of the above mentioned shops. 12. The objection of the tenant that he will have to pay higher rent if was asked to shift in the alternative shop stands decided in the case reported in Kashi Nath Srivastava v. Mrs. G. S. Tiwari, 1982 ALJ 642, in which it has been held that in case if a tenant was required to pay higher rent for a shop which was available to him as an alternative accommodation could not be treated as a valid hardship to the tenant. I do not find any force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. It is accordingly rejected. Since alternative shops are available to the tenant and he is not prepared to shift, I endorse the finding of the appellate authority on the question of comparative hardship decided in favour of the landlord. 13. The finding recorded by the appellate authority on the question of comparative hardship is a finding of fact and does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. 14. Another point raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the appellate authority while considering the release application has lost sight of Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules which provides as follows :- "16. 14. Another point raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the appellate authority while considering the release application has lost sight of Rule 16 (2) (a) of the Rules which provides as follows :- "16. Application for release on the ground of personal requirement- Section 21 (1) (a) and 34 (8)-(1) In considering the requirements of personal occupation for purposes of residence by the landlord or any members of his family, the Prescribed Authority shall, also have regard to such factors as the following : (2) While considering an application for release under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 in respect of a building let out for purposes of any business, the Prescribed Authority shall also have regard to such facts as the following- (a) the greater the period since the tenant opposite party, or the original tenant whose heir the opposite party is, has been carrying on his business in that building, the less the justification for allowing the application. The appellate authority has applied its mind to this question and rejected the contention by recording a finding of fact that greater hardship would be caused to the opposite parties if the application was rejected. 15. In a case reported in Mst. Baga Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan, AIR 1979 SC 272 it has been held that in all cases of ejectment some inconvenience, less and trouble is bound to be caused to the tenants. 16. In another case reported in N. S. Dutta v. The VII Addl. District Judge, Allahabad, 1984 (1) ARC 113, this Court while considering the scope of Rule 16 (2) has held that mere length of period for which business in premises is being run is not decisive. The Court is entitled to take into account whether the tenant has made any effort to search an alternative accommodation. In the instant case it has come on record that the landlord was prepared to offer a shop to the tenant but he did not accept it, on the ground that it was not suitable for his business. He also refused to shift his business at Railway Road, Dayal Market (Bara Bazar) and Naya Bazar only on the solitary ground that he will not get any shop there on the same rent which he was paying for the said shop. He also refused to shift his business at Railway Road, Dayal Market (Bara Bazar) and Naya Bazar only on the solitary ground that he will not get any shop there on the same rent which he was paying for the said shop. This point has been finally decided in the case reported in Kashi Nath Srivastava (supra). 17. In my opinion so far as the business of confectionary is concerned it is not of such a nature which may earn a goodwill, as stated by the petitioner. The length of business will have no effect on the release application inasmuch as this point has been considered and decided against the petitioner, which is a pure question of fact. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot enter into findings of facts and re-appraise the entire evidence to record its own finding. 18. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be granted three months' time to vacate the premises in dispute. I, accordingly grant three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within one month that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the opposite parties and also deposits three months' rent in advance by 30-1-1990.