JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. Present petition arises out of proceedings initiated under Section 21, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short called 'the Act' by Smt. Qamrunnisa, landlady-petitioner. 2. THE tenant contested claim of the landlady who alternatively gave suggestion for vacating part of the tenancy so as to satisfy need of both the landlady as well as tenant. The Prescribed Authority released only a part of the shop in question and allowed the tenant to continue in the rest of the accommodation. Two appeals one by the landlady and the other by the tenant were filed. Both the appeals have been decided. 3. PRESCRIBED Authority allowed application vide its judgment and order dated 14th August, 1981 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and also granted two months' time (for vacating the accommodation in question. 4. FEELING aggrieved, tenant filed Rent Control Appeal No. 305 of 1981 and the petitioner, being landlady, filed Rent Control Appeal No. 311 of 1981 under Section 22 of the Act. The Appellate Authority partly allowed both the appeals and directed that the portion of area released will be area which falls between the road and the shop of F. Rahmani and towards western extremity of the middle shutter Appellate Authority further directed that the landlady shall Construct a wall parallel to the western wall of the shop whose eastern extremity will be just west to the western extremity of the middle shutter in the shop in question. ' 5. FEELING aggrieved, landlady has filed present wit Petition. 6. ALONG with the Writ Petition copies of Memorandum of Appeals, agreement in writing between Qamrunnisa and F. Rahman (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) and copy of the counter-affidavit filed by Shyarh Narain Kapoor, respondent No. 2 before the Appellate Authority have also been annexed (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). Perusaji of (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) sh4ws that Shyam Narain Kapoor, respondent No. 3 filed counter-affidavit admitting that the portion ad joining the accommodation in the tenancy of F. Rahman should be released in order to do justice between the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that this aspect of the matter on which both the parties had agreed has been arbitrarily ignored. The grievance of the petitioner is that this aspect of the matter on which both the parties had agreed has been arbitrarily ignored. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 2 to contest the said claim. The grievance of the petitioner is fully justified. In view of the above, judgment and order dated 6th February, 1982 passed by respondent No. 1, referred to above is being set aside to the extent that Appellate Authority shall consider the request of the landlady to which Shyam Narain Kapoor had no objection (as contained in the counter-affidavit) copy of which has been filed as (Anne cure 7 to the writ petition). 7. THE Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent and the observations made above. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.