Judgment : R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and is directed against the order passed by the authority below dated 30-10-1995, allowing the appeal of the landlord and dismissing that of the petitioner. 2. THE contesting respondent No. 3 filed the release application for the release of 40/69, Hospital Road, Kanpur, a commercial building, in his favour, mainly with the allegations that his son Avanish Kumar Sexena was doing law and has completed the same and has started practising as an advocate at Kanpur and his daughter Km. Sangeeta wanted to run a coaching Center in music and dance particularly when her mother was Head of the Department in Music in D. G. College, Kanpur and was in a position to help her daughter. It was also pleaded that after his retirement he himself wanted to open a shop of books in the building in question as the same was suitable for the said business. It was asserted that Avanish Kumar Saxena wanted to open his chamber in the building in question. The application was contested and opposed by the petitioner who has denied the pleas taken by the landlord and pleaded that the need set up by him was neither genuine nor bona fide and the plea of hardship was also taken. 3. THE Prescribed Authority was pleased to allow the application in part i. e. two rooms situated behind the main Hall were released in favour of the landlord. 4. FELLING aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority two appeals were filed before the appellate authority i. e. one by the petitioner and the other by the landlord. The appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged by means of this petition, the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in so far it stands against him. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the need of the landlord could be satisfied, by releasing a portion of the Hall in question and the appellate authority did not consider this aspect of the matter. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the need of the landlord could be satisfied, by releasing a portion of the Hall in question and the appellate authority did not consider this aspect of the matter. He has also urged that the landlord has failed to show that he had the financial capacity to establish the proposed business. 6. ON the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 contended that the findings recorded on the question of need and hardship by the authorities below, were findings of fact and were based on relevant evidence. It has also been urged that the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not raised before the authorities below as they involve factual controversy, therefore, should not be permitted to be raised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the first time. 7. LEARNED counsel for the respondent also submitted that clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Rule 16 has got no application to the commercial buildings. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority. From the map annexed with the writ petition it is apparent that without passing through main Hall of the building it was impossible to reach the rooms which have been directed to be released in favour of the landlord. The question of feasibility of partition of the Hall was not raised by the petitioner before the appellate authority; Clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 is apparently applicable only to the residential buildings. In some of the cases it has been held by this court that Clause (d) could also be applied to the commercial buildings but the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das v. Smt. Jiley Kaur 1991 (1) ARC-377, (Para-6) held that sub-rule (1) of Rule 16, has got no application to the accommodations let Out for business purposes it deals with accommodations let out for residential purposes, was not relevant for the said case, inasmuch as the building in dispute was a commercial building. 9. 9. BHAGWAN Das case (Supra) was relied upon by this court in Mangna Nand Bhatt v. Additional District Judge 1992 (2) ARC-27 and it was held as under: "in my opinion, learned counsel for the respondents is correct in his submission that the provisions of Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act would not be applicable when the release is sought for business purposes. (Refer BHAGWAN Das v. Smt. Jiley Kaur and others, 1991 (1) ARC377 (SC ). " 10. EVEN before the aforesaid decisions, this Court in Smt. Chanda Devi v. XIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1983 (1) ARC 825, was pleased to rule as under: "but sub-rule (1) has been confined to residential building only. It does not apply to non-residential building, let out for purposes of any business. Argument of a learned counsel for opposite party that used word 'also' in sub-Rule (d) indicates that circumstances mentioned under it are not exhaustive, therefore, the guideline provided in sub-rule (1) for residential building could be taken into account while comparing hardship of commercial accommodation cannot be accepted as word 'also' has been used in sub-rule (1) as well. " Since clause (d) applies only to buildings let out for residential purposes, therefore, there is no question of partition of the hall. 11. THE other question raised by the petitioner about the financial capacity for the respondent to establish the proposed business in the building in question was also not raised before the appellate authority. It involves factual controversy which cannot be resolved at this stage. Therefore, I am not inclined to permit the petitioner to raise the said point before this court. 12. THE findings recorded on the question of need and hardship by the authorities below are findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on the record and call for no interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given some reasonable time to vacate the building in question, he has also offered to give an undertaking to vacate the building and to hand over vacant possession, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has opposed the said prayer only formally. 13. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given some reasonable time to vacate the building in question, he has also offered to give an undertaking to vacate the building and to hand over vacant possession, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has opposed the said prayer only formally. 13. IN my opinion it will meet ends of justice that if I grant six months time to the petitioner to vacate the building in question subject to the condition he furnishes an undertaking in writing before the Prescribed Authority, within 3 weeks from today, that he shall vacate the building in question immediately on expiry of the said time shall hand over vacant possession to respondent No. 3 and shall pay the rent of the building for the period or his occupation. It is further directed that the petitioner shall deposit the arrears of rent if any, within a period of one month from today. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid directions, the respondent No. 3 will be at liberty to execute the order of release against him accordance with law. 14. SUBJECT to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.