JUDGMENT : - Sudhir Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7-12-1989 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of landlord-Respondent No. 3. 2. BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Saeed Ahmad was tenant of the disputed accommodation consisting of two rooms measuring 12' x 9' and 15' x 10' of which respondent No. 2 is the landlord. Respondent No. 2 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against the tenant on the allegation that the disputed accommodation was let out to Saeed Ahmad when he was minor but now he has become major and wants to do independent business of fitter and turner and he has got experience of the same. The tenant is running coaching classes where about 20 children come to get tuition but the tenant has got his own house in Mohalla Ali Agangran where he can run his coaching school on the ground floor after raising construction on the first floor of his residence. The application was con tested by late Saeed Ahmad. He alleged that he is teaching about 40 children in the day and 40 children in the evening in the accommodation in dispute which is his source of livelihood. It was further stated that the landlord has godown bearing number 11/2575/2 and there is a big Plot No. 11/2661/1 situated opposite to the accommodation in dispute in which the joint business is being carried on by the landlord and others. The Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlord was bona fide but rejected the application while considering the comparative hardship. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against this order. The appellate authority allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 7-12-1989 holding that the need of Respondent No. 2 is bona fide and genuine and he would suffer a greater hardship in case the application is rejected. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. 3. THE main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the landlord has a godown 11/2575/2, a shop 11/2575, and a plot 11/2661/1. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. 3. THE main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the landlord has a godown 11/2575/2, a shop 11/2575, and a plot 11/2661/1. It is suggested that if Respondent No. 2 wanted to do independent business of Fitter and Turner he can do so in such accommodations. THE Prescribed Authority has found that in 11/2575 and 11/2575/2 joint business of wood work was being carried on by the father of Respondent No. 2 and his brother and on that basis he held that it was open to Respondent No. 2 to carry on independent business but while comparing the hardship he made observation that he can do such business in these two properties. 4. DURING the pendency of the appeal, the appellate authority made a local inspection and prepared a report Paper No. 65-C. The petitioner has not filed copy of the said report. The appellate authority observed in his order that these accommodations were not vacant. In both the places goods of wood work were found. In between these two premises the space was being utilised for residential purposes. The brother of Respondent No. 2 was married in the year 1989 and he along with his wife was residing therein. The version of the respondent was that he had no concern with premises No. 11/2575/2, 11/2575/2 and 11/2661/1. As regards property No. 11/2661/1, it was clearly denied by Respondent No. 2 that he is owner of the property. It is not necessary to decide the question as to whether Respondent No. 2 is the owner of property No. 11/2575. The Courts below have recorded a finding that the business in the said premises was being carried on by the father of Respondent No. 2 and his brother. Respondent No. 2 wanted to carry on the business independently. There is no vacant portion in Premises No. 11/2575/2. Respondent No. 2 was not the owner of property No. 11/2661/1 which is an open piece of land. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority both recorded finding that the need of Respondent No. 2 to carry on independent business of Fitter and Turner was bona fide. This finding is not vitiated. 5. Respondent No. 2 was not the owner of property No. 11/2661/1 which is an open piece of land. The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority both recorded finding that the need of Respondent No. 2 to carry on independent business of Fitter and Turner was bona fide. This finding is not vitiated. 5. DURING the pendency of appeal Saeed Ahmad, the tenant, died who was using the disputed accommodation for tuition purpose. After his death it is alleged that his son is taking the tuition in the disputed accommodation. The appellate authority made local inspection in regard to disputed accommodation and other properties including the house owned by the tenants. It was found that the tenant has constructed the house consisting of three rooms, verandah, sehan, kitchen etc. on the ground floor and on the first floor there is no room but only lintel was not placed. It was found that if the tenant's son wanted to continue the tuition work, he can do so in his residential house. Respondent No. 2 had filed application in the year 1980. Now about 18 years have passed and if there was any further requirement for tuition purpose he could have made necessary arrangements by now. 6. THE last submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the landlord had made an offer during the pendency of appeal to Saeed Ahmad whereby he stated that he was prepared to give his house on rent. This offer was not accepted by the tenant. He filed an objection and also counter-affidavit. He subsequently expired. It is contended that the petitioners are now prepared to accept that accommodation. In this writ petition in none of the paragraphs the petitioners have stated that they were prepared to accept that offer. It is only the oral argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this respect. In para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit only a mention has been made that Respondent No. 2 had made an offer which was not accepted by the petitioner. He has not given in the rejoinder affidavit that he was prepared to accept the offer. It is only the oral argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this respect. In para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit only a mention has been made that Respondent No. 2 had made an offer which was not accepted by the petitioner. He has not given in the rejoinder affidavit that he was prepared to accept the offer. Learned Counsel for the respondent has made statement that at present the question of making such offer does not arise particularly when the petitioners have been found to have raised the constructions in their own residential house and if they want to carry on tuition work they can do so in their residential house. THE petitioners could have accepted the offer made to them. It is not open to urge by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to give such offer by Respondent No. 2 again after about 10 years of filing of the writ petition. There is no merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed with costs. In the end learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may he granted to vacate the disputed accommodation. The petitioners are granted three months time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided he gives written undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority that I hey will vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord-respondent. Petition dismissed.