JUDGMENT : - Sudhir Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16-7-1997, al lowing the release application filed by landlady-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (l) (a) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of the appellate authority Respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal against the said order on 4-12-1998. 2. RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an application for release against the petitioners under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act on the allegation that she purchased the house in question by registered sale-deed on 21-1-1966. She let out the accommodation in question to petitioner No. 1 on 15-7-1977 at monthly rent of Rs. 350/ -. She requires the disputed accommodation for residential purpose. Her family consists of her husband, one son and a daughter Prakashwati who is widow. She has in her accommodation only one Kothari for residential purpose, which is hardly sufficient for her family members. It was denied by the petitioners that the need of the landlady was bona fide and genuine. It was further stated that the accommodation was let out to the institution Bal Vidya Mandir. The prescribed authority found that accommodation in question was let out to Km. Manju Sharma, petitioner No. 1 and not to the institution. On the facts it was found that the landlady requires the premises in question for her residential purpose. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. RESPONDENT No. 1 has dismissed the appeal on 4-12-1998. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deo Raj, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the application filed by respondent No. 3 was riot maintainable as the accommodation was let out to an educational institution. An application u/s. 21 (l) (a) is barred in view of the pro visions of S. 21 (8) of the Act which provides that nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Govt. or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord-is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable. or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord-is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable. The recognised educational institution has been defined u/s. 3 (q) of the Act which reads as under- "recognised educational institution", means (any University established by law in India, or) any institution recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 or recognised or affiliated under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. " 4. THE prescribed authority recorded a finding that the accommodation was let out to the petitioner and not to the institution. Secondly, the petitioner himself has filed a document (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) which indicates that the school run by petitioner No. 1 was recognised by Basieshiksha Adhikari in the year 1987. The petitioner was admittedly a tenant since 1977. Under the definition of Section 3 (q) of the Act, referred to above, it is only a recognised institution either under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 which is lo be taken into account for the purpose of exemption under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. On the facts found by the authorities BELOW Section 21 (8) of the Act is not applicable, as at the time of letting the institution was not recognised. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the finding recorded by the authorities below on the question of bona fide need. On perusal of the finding recorded by the authorities below I do not find any manifest illegality in the finding on the question of bona fide need. 6. THE last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the Courts below the landlady, respondent No. 3 had offered alternative accommodation which the petitioner is now prepared to accept. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed to this effect. These two alternative accommodations are- (1) Accommodation situate at Sherpur; and (2) Accommodation in front of the disputed accommodation i.e., two rooms set with amenities. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed to this effect. These two alternative accommodations are- (1) Accommodation situate at Sherpur; and (2) Accommodation in front of the disputed accommodation i.e., two rooms set with amenities. Sri Deo, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is agreed that the petitioner can take the accommodation from her which is in her ownership and possession at Sherpur as well as the accommodation in which she is in possession alleged to be in front of the disputed accommodation. It is, however, contended that she is not in possession of two rooms but it is submitted that whatever the accommodation is with her, she will pass on to the petitioner, 7. CONSIDERING the offer which has been accepted, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall vacate the disputed accommodation within two months from today. The landlady shall provide the accommodation within one week from the date of notice given by the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in her possession. Petition partly allowed.