SUDHIR NARAIN, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-7-1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, releasing the shop in question in favour of landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 18-1-1996 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a tenant of shop No. 55 situate in Subhash Bazar, District Meerut, Smt. Ram Kali Devi was the owner and landlady of the shop. She filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 6-8-1984 against the petitioner on the allegation that her son, Kailash Chandra was employed as clerk in Income Tax Department. He was not keeping good health and he had also taken premature retirement. He was unemployed. It was further stated that his two sons, namely, Krishna Gopal Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Gupta were also unemployed. They were aged 26 and 24 years. The shop in question was required for carrying on business by Kailash Chandra, Krishna Gopal Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Gupta. They required the shop for carrying on business of general merchant. It was alleged that the petitioner was carrying on general merchant business but for the last ten years he has left the business and is selling newspapers. He does not require the shop in question. 3. The petitioner contested the application and it was denied that Kailash Chandra required the shop in question. His two sons were not unemployed. Shiv Charan Das was the owner of shop Nos. 54, 55 and 56. Under the Will shop No. 54 was given to Kailash Chandra, shop No. 55 to Smt. Ram Kali Devi. Kailash Chandra could file application for release against his tenant for shop No. 54. It was alleged that he was carrying on business and in case he is evicted he will suffer greater hardship. 4. During the pendency of the application Smt. Ram Kali Devi died. An application for substitution was filed by Kailash Chandra stating that Smt. Ram Kali Devi died leaving behind her two sons, Kailash Chandra and Jai Prakash and a daughter Sneh Lata Gupta. Under the Will shop No. 55 was also given to the applicant after the death of Smt. Ram Kali Devi. An application for substitution was filed by Kailash Chandra stating that Smt. Ram Kali Devi died leaving behind her two sons, Kailash Chandra and Jai Prakash and a daughter Sneh Lata Gupta. Under the Will shop No. 55 was also given to the applicant after the death of Smt. Ram Kali Devi. He is alone entitled to be substituted. The substitution application was allowed and only Kailash Chandra was substituted in place of Smt. Ram Kali Devi. 5. The Prescribed Authority found that Kailash Chandra and Dinesh Chandra Gupta were unemployeds. As regards Krishna Gopal Gupta it was held that he was employed. Considering the comparative hardship he found that in case the application of respondent No. 3 is rejected he will suffer a greater hardship. The application was allowed by order dated 21-7-1990. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and the appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority on 18-1-1996. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. 6. I have heard Sri R. B. Singhal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Mithal learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the need of the sons of Kailash Chandra could not be taken into consideration. The application was filed by Smt. Ram Kali Devi. She died during the pendency of the application. After the death of landlady only the need of her legal representative could be taken into consideration as provided under sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act which reads as under: "where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the landlord dies, his legal representatives shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased. " 8. It is contended that the application can be further prosecuted only as regards the need of the legal representative. The need of the sons of such legal representative cannot be considered. Section 3 (g) defines the word family which reads as under: "family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her (i) spouse. (ii) male lineal descendants. The need of the sons of such legal representative cannot be considered. Section 3 (g) defines the word family which reads as under: "family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her (i) spouse. (ii) male lineal descendants. (iii) such parents, grandparents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her, and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building. " 9. The need under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act relates to the need of the landlord or members of his family. In case the landlord dies and an application for substitution is filed, his legal representatives will be entitled to realise the rent and will be landlord as defined under Section 3 (j) of the Act. The need of his family members can be taken into consideration under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the need cannot be taken into consideration has no substance. 10. It may further be noticed that the application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act was filed by Smt. Ram Kali Devi for the need of her son Kailash Chandra and her grandsons Krishna Gopal Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Gupta. The need of the grandsons can also be taken into consideration as they are members of the family of the landlord as defined under Section 3 (g) of the Act. The application filed by Smt. Ram Kali Devi for their need as well as substituted by Kailash Chandra, the need of Krishna Gopal Gupta and Dinesh Chandra Gupta could have been considered. 11. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it has not been established that the need of Dinesh Chandra Gupta is bona fide. Dinesh Chandra Gupta was found to be employed in a factory. The application was filed that Kailash Chandra himself was unemployed. He was working as a clerk but he had taken voluntary retirement and thereafter he was without employment. His one son, Krishna Gopal Gupta, has joined the service. As regards Dinesh Chandra Gupta it was stated that he was working as daily worker in some factory. The application was filed that Kailash Chandra himself was unemployed. He was working as a clerk but he had taken voluntary retirement and thereafter he was without employment. His one son, Krishna Gopal Gupta, has joined the service. As regards Dinesh Chandra Gupta it was stated that he was working as daily worker in some factory. He is not working in a permanent capacity at any place. The finding recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that he also requires himself to establish in business does not suffer from any illegality. 12. The third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Kailash Chandra was owner of shop No. 54 and he could have filed application for release against the tenant who was occupying shop No. 54. It is the choice of the landlord as against whom he should file application for release. The petitioner has not shown that there was any special reason for filing application for release as against the tenant occupying shop No. 54. 13. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner made efforts but he could not get alternative accommodation and he will suffer greater hardship in case the application is allowed. 14. It has been found that respondent No. 3 is unemployed and his son Dinesh Chandra Gupta is not in any permanent job. The application was filed on 6-8-1984. The petitioner could have taken the shop which might have been newly constructed or could find out some alternative accommodation during these 12 years. The finding recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that respondent No. 3 will suffer greater hardship, in case the application is rejected, is not erroneous in law. 15. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. 16. In the end learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to vacate the shop in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the shop in question provided the petitioner gives a written undertaking on affidavit within two weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, that he will vacate the shop in question within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to respondent No. 3. Petition dismissed. .