JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yogi, J. Petitioner, Ayodhya Nath is said to be the tenant of a shop bearing. No. VI/105, Chowk Bazar. Respondent No. 2 is the landlord/owner of the said accommodation (for short called the shop in question). 2. LANDLORD (Respondent No. 2) filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a), U. P. urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act XIII of 1972) (for short called Act') copy of the release application has been filed as Annexure 1 to the petition. The petitioner contested the claim of the landlord by filing written statement (Annexure 2 to the petition). Parties led evidence by filing affidavits in support of their respective cases. Thereafter the Delegated Authority/rent Control and Eviction Officer by means of the judgment dated 30-5-1996 (Annexure 9) rejected the release application. 3. FEELING aggrieved landlord (Respondent No: 2) filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act and the same has been allowed by the District Judge, Al-mora respondent No. 1 vide judgment and order dated June 24, 1999 (Annexure 13). 4. THE tenant has come up before this Court by filing this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India and seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated June 24, 1994. (Annexure 13) passed by Respondent No. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2. While the matter was being heard, a supplementary affidavit sworn by Gulshan Kumar, son of the petitioner has been filed. 5. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that three accommodations mentioned in the said supplementary affidavit have not been taken into account by the lower Appellate Court while the said Court passed the impugned orderdated24-6-1999 (Annexure 13). 6. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also filed an application for adding ground in the memo of writ petition. The submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner are being dealt with herein under, 7. 6. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also filed an application for adding ground in the memo of writ petition. The submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner are being dealt with herein under, 7. REGARDING ground pertaining to 'nandan Fruif Housing, in respect of which ground No. 2 in the application for additional ground has been mentioned, it may be stated that a plea has been taken in para 12 of written statement (Annexure 2 to the petition with reference to the said accommodation and also in para 3 in the affidavit of Ayodhya Nath filed in support of the tenant (Annexure 3 to the petition). 8. PERUSAL of the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court. (Annexure 13) shows that parties had filed additional evidence in the Appellate Court and reference was made only to certain accommodations pointed out by the tenant. The said judgment does not indicate that tenant sought reliefs on the aforesaid plea in the written statement and the affidavits referred to above before the Appellate Court. There is no averment in present writ petition to the effect that the tenant had referred to and placed reliance on the aforesaid plea. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to certain portion in the made judgment (contained in para 3) to show that the tenant had referred to the said accommodation before the Appellate Court and had pressed the said plea. Reading of the judgment shows that para 3 refers only to the pleadings of the tenant. It does not, in fact, refer to the argument actually made before the appellate Court. In view of the above, petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order of Appellate Court on a ground which was not taken and relied upon before the Court below. 9. AS far at the question pertaining to ground one, I sought to be added by 'amendment, is concerned it refers to Neerja Bhawan. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the statement made in Supplementary affidavit stating that same plea was urged and pressed before the appellate authority. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed when Court had already pointed out this lapse during pre-lunch hearing and hence it was prepared n lunch hours and filed thereafter. Supplementary Affidavit thus seeks to fill in lacuna, which cannot be permitted at this belated stage. 10. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed when Court had already pointed out this lapse during pre-lunch hearing and hence it was prepared n lunch hours and filed thereafter. Supplementary Affidavit thus seeks to fill in lacuna, which cannot be permitted at this belated stage. 10. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner then referred to ground No. 1 contained in the application for adding legal grounds, which refers to the premises known as 'neerja Bhawan'. THE submission of the petitioner on this score is misconceived and cannot be entertained. THE lower Appellate Court has considered the said accommodation in para 27 of its judgment (PP 138 of the Paper Book). Copy of the affidavit (paper No. 47) has not been filed alongwith the petition but the same was placed before the Court and it has been perused. THE lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding to the effect, after appreciating relevant material on record, that the shops were re-constructed and have been given on rent to those very tenants. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record. On behalf of petitioner, a reference has been made to the premises, known as (Ranjeet Nivas) a part of which was got allotted to one Ram Avtar (vide judgment Annexure 9 to the petition). The fact that one shop in the premises known as 'ranjeet Nivas' was got allotted in favour of Ram Avtar has been treated as one of the circumstances to hold that there was no bona fide need of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority also referred to the decision in 1996 (1) ARC462. 11. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his above contention referred to the decision reported in Shree Balaji Krishna Hardware Stores v. Srinivasaiah, 1998 1 JT 429 . THE Supreme Court had observed that Court could not assume that the shop let out during the pendency of release application was not suitable. THE Supreme Court took the view that landlord must explain and Court must consider whether the accommodation which become available to the landlord during the pendency of release application, was adequate and suitable or not for the purpose of landlord for which release application was filed. Reliance has also been placed on the decision reported in Maqboolunnisa v. Mohd. Saleha Quraishi, 1999 (35) ALR 331 (SC). 12. Reliance has also been placed on the decision reported in Maqboolunnisa v. Mohd. Saleha Quraishi, 1999 (35) ALR 331 (SC). 12. THE learned Counsel for the con testing respondent No. 2 on the other hand, submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Court could not be said to be vitiated on the ground that tower Appellate Court has not recorded finding on the question Whether the shop allotted to Ram Avtar was adequate and suitable for the purpose of landlord, inasmuch as according to the lower Appellate Court (white considering this aspect of the matter in para 19 of its judgment in Annexure 13) has taken in to account Paper No. 24-Cand negativated the case of the tenant that same was allotted with the consent of wife of contesting respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the landlord has laid emphasis on the observation "the length and width of the shop has not been given which was vacated in the 1993 by one Shri Puran Lal Sen" in its judgment (Annexure 13). The learned Counsel on the basis of the said observation, contended that lower Appellate Court did not consider the extent of the accommodation. 13. AT the outset it may be submitted that the learned Counsel for the respondent is not correct in his contention. It is correct that lower Appellate Court has made the above observation. It has how ever, not applied its mind to the fact as to whether the accommodation was adequate and suitable and whether in case it was occupied by the landlord, need of the landlord could be satisfied. The lower Court could not apply its mind from that aspect when it was not even aware of the dimension of the said shop allotted to Ram Avtar. 14. THE learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that writ petition may be allowed at this stage itself so as to enable the Appellate Court to record finding on this issue. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has got no objection, if the issue concerning the above aspect regarding shop allotted to Ram Avtar, is being remitted to the Appellate Court for decision afresh. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court on all other aspects and is sues are affirmed. 15. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has got no objection, if the issue concerning the above aspect regarding shop allotted to Ram Avtar, is being remitted to the Appellate Court for decision afresh. The findings recorded by the Appellate Court on all other aspects and is sues are affirmed. 15. RESPONDENT No. 1 is, in the above circumstances, directed to consider the limited issue whether the shop allotted in favour of Ram Avtar was adequate and suitable and it could suffice the need of the landlord and, if so, the consequences thereof. 16. RENT appear No. 6 of 1996 is remanded with direction to Respondent No. 1 to decide the aforementioned issue only, and pass final order in consonance thereof. No party will be entitled to challenge any other issue before Appellate Court. No other points has been pressed. 17. WRIT petition is partly allowed to the extent that the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 24-6-1999 (Annexure 13) is set aside. Rent Appeal No. 6 of 1998 is remarked back to decide within 3 months of the filing of certified copy of this judgment before him, ignoring its observations earlier on this point in his said judgment, the following issue: "whether the shop in Ranjeet Nivas-allotted to Ram Avtar during pendency of release proceeding was adequate and suitable and it could suffice the need of the landlord, if so its effect?" Appeal shall be finally decided in the light of the decision on the above issue. Petition Partly allowed.