JUDGMENT S.C. Verma, J. - In the present case, the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was initiated by the respondent No. 3 in respect of shop No. 50, Ajit Prasad Marg Dehradun, of which the petitioners are the tenants. The tenant late Sri Chandra Kishore Uniyal was doing Ayurvedic Practice in the disputed shop and after his death, his widow claimed to be doing Pharmacy business along with one Shri Triloki Narain Nautiyal. 2. The respondent No. 3 needed the shop to settle his widowed daughter-in-law who was fully qualified and equipped to do computer business. According to the respondent No. 3, the disputed shop was lying locked and the widow of Sri Uniyal was not qualified to do Ayurvedic Practice. 3. The Prescribed Authority released the accommodation by order dated 29.8.1988, holding that the need of the landlord to settle the widowed daughter-in-law is bonafide and genuine, and the tenant would not suffer hardship as she is doing the business of manufacture of Ayurvedic preparations in another premises. The appeal of the tenant was also dismissed by the learned District Judge by order dated 26.6.1990, and the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority were upheld. 4. The contention of the petitioner that the widowed daughter-in-law of the landlord owns and possesses her own shop hearing No. 41/5/2, Ajit Prasad Marg was held to be not available for running computer training business. It was further held that shop No. 39/5/2, Ajit Prasad Marg was also not available as the same was under the tenancy of Kumar Lime Stone since 1967 and business is being carried on in that shop for the last more than two decades. The Appellate Authority further held that the business of manufacturing drugs for which a licence has been obtained by Smt. Nirmala Devi, widow of the deceased tenant is being carried out in the licensed premises at 20, Anand Chowk. Smt. Nirmala Devi being not qualified cannot use the disputed shop for doing Ayurvedic Practice or to use the same for dispensing Ayurvedic medicines. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judge has not considered the case in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16(2) is not borne out from the material on record. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner who was a qualified Ayurvedic practioner had died. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judge has not considered the case in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16(2) is not borne out from the material on record. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner who was a qualified Ayurvedic practioner had died. The widow Smt. Nirmala Devi was not qualified to do the Ayurvedic practice and as such she cannot herself use the shop for the purpose for which it was being used. Moreover, she has an alternative accommodation which is a licensed premises for making Ayurvedic preparations. 6. I have carefully perused the judgments of the two Courts below and the material which has been brought on record and I do not think that the findings recorded by the Courts below call for any interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the end, made a request that earlier the accommodation on the first floor which was being used as office by Pramod Bansal, deceased son of the landlord, was offered to ex-change the disputed accommodation, was earlier refused by the petitioners, but now on account of the genuine requirement of the petitioner, in case the same is made available, the petitioner shall vacate the disputed premises. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Sri Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate, very generously agreed to exchange the accommodations but according to him, this offer would stand only till the life time of Smt. Nirmala Devi. In view of the above facts, it would be in the interest of justice that the disputed accommodation be directed to be vacated by the petitioner within a period of two months and the other accommodation which is offered in exchange should be made available within this period. The petitioner would continue to pay the same rent in respect of the exchanged accommodation which she was paying earlier. It is also made clear that Smt. Nirmala Devi, widow of late Sri Chandra Kishore Uniyal, would be entitled to use the shop at the first floor only during her life time and after her death the accommodation would revert back to the landlord. 8. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.