SUDHIR NARAIN, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 1-12-1999 whereby Respondent No. 1 al lowed the appeal and released the dis puted accommodation in favour of the landlady, Respondent No. 2. 2. The facts, in brief are that Respon dent No. 2 filed an application under Sec tion 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the release of the shop in question under the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that her son Arun Kumar is a Doctor and his wife is also a Doctor. They will construct a nursing home after demolition of other shops in cluding the shop of the petitioner. The application was contested by the petitioner. It was denied that Dr. Arun Kumar requires the disputed shop bona fide for construction of a nursing home and his wife. Both are already doing medical practice in the residential portion of the house and certain constructions have been added near their residential house. 3. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 30-3-1996. Respondent No. 2 filed appeal against the said order. Respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal and released the disputed accommodation in favour of the Respondent No. 2 on the finding that the landlady requires the dis puted shop for constructing nursing home for her son Dr. Arun Kumar and the Respondent No. 2 shall suffer a greater hardship, in case the application is rejected. The petitioner has challenged this order in the instant writ petition. 4. On 23-12-1999 the matter was heard by me. One of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the respondent had sought release application on the ground that there were four shops and all the four shops are required to be demolished for reconstruction of the nurs ing home. The appellate authority had made observations that all the shops were required for demolition and construction of the nursing home. Respondent No. 2 it was urged had submitted, a plan for con structing the nursing home but the appel late authority had not recorded any specific finding as to whether in the said plan the shop of the petitioner was re quired to be demolished and secondly, as to what is the extent of the requirement of Respondent No. 2 for constructing nurs ing home. 5. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respon dent No. 2 had raised another issue that the petitioner has other alternative ac commodation and he will not suffer any injury if he is evicted. Considering these submissions, I directed the appellate authority to examine the matter and record a specific finding as to what is the plan to construct the nursing home and place required for it. He was further required to appoint a Commissioner to prepare a map as to whether the petitioner has some space adjoining to the shop in question where hecan carry on business. 6. The appellate authority has sub mitted its findings. It has been found that the landlady had submitted a map for sanc tion of the construction before the Nagar Palika on 28-12-1990. The length and width of the nursing home was 57 x 21. On first floor 8 rooms and on the ground floor similarly 8 rooms were proposed to be constructed. The proposed nursing home covers the area of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner has not shown that the map submitted for sanction by Respondent No. 2 was incorrect. 7. One of the suggestions was that Respondent No. 2 has other three shops the area of which was 50 x 20 where the nursing home can also be constructed. The appellate authority considering the situa tion, the area and location, found that such three shops which are situate towards south to the four shops are not fit for construction of the nursing home. The third suggestion was that the landlady can construct nursing home at an open piece of land near the petrol pump. Firstly, it is four kilkometres from the disputed accom modation and secondly it is an open piece of land where the petrol pump is situate. Considering all these facts, the finding recorded by the appellate authority that the Respondent No. 2 requires the dis puted accommodation after demolition of the shops for construction of nursing home does not suffer from any illegality. Admittedly, Dr. Arun Kumar son of Respondent No. 2 is a Doctor and his wife is also a Doctor. The mere fact that they are doing medical practice in their residential house does not indicate that they would not construct a nursing home as Respon dent No. 2 has proposed in her application. Admittedly, Dr. Arun Kumar son of Respondent No. 2 is a Doctor and his wife is also a Doctor. The mere fact that they are doing medical practice in their residential house does not indicate that they would not construct a nursing home as Respon dent No. 2 has proposed in her application. The son of the Respondent No. 2 and his wife are carrying on medical practice prior to the year 1985. Their desire to construct the nursing home is bonafide and genuine. 8. The next consideration is about the hardship which the parties would suffer in the event the application is rejected or allowed. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from four shops which are proposed to be demolished and thereafter construct nursing home, the Respondent No. 2 has three other shops which are not very far away from the dis puted accommodation and the petitioner may be provided any one of the shops for carrying on business. The petitioner is al leged to be a timber merchant. The version of the Respondent No. 2 is that he is a carpenter and is engaged in carpentry busi ness. In any case he requires accommodation for his business. There is no reason that if the three shops which are owned by Respon dent No. 3 are vacant, the petitioner should be offered by Respondent No. 2 any one shop out of those three shops. 10. Sri Rajesh Tandon learned Coun sel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that none of those three shops are vacant but they are in possession of the tenants. The Respondent No. 2 at no stage pleaded that those shops were in the occupation of the tenants. The petitioner had contended that instead of constructing of nursing home at the place where it is proposed to be constructed, such nursing home can be constructed after demolition of those three shops. The appellate authority, how ever, on consideration of the proposed map submitted by Respondent No. 2 found that it was not feasible to construct nursing home after demolition of those three shops. 11. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that those three shops are in the tenancy of three tenants, namely, Ram Dutt, Shamser Khan and Shamshul Haq. These persons have also filed af fidavits in this Court. 11. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit stating that those three shops are in the tenancy of three tenants, namely, Ram Dutt, Shamser Khan and Shamshul Haq. These persons have also filed af fidavits in this Court. The petitioner has filed counter- affidavit and denied that these persons are tenants of the shop in question. It is stated that one shop was in the tenancy of Abdul Rashid who had va cated the same and handed over the vacant possession to the landlady in 1980. Another shop was in possession of Salam and Kalan who had vacated the same and handed over possession in the year 1982. The third shop was in the tenancy of Abdul Haq, the father of Shamshul Haq who is now doing his business in another shop belonging to the landlady and he has left the shop, which was occupied by his father. These are disputed questions of fact and require consideration by the appellate authority. 12. Another argument has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 that the tenant has other accommodation in his possession where he can carry on his business. Respondent No. 2 has not indicated any other shop which is available to the tenant-petitioner. The Respondent No. 2 had sug gested that adjoining the shop in question which is under the tenancy of the petitioner, he has vacant land and he can carry on business on such open land. The appellate authority had found that such land does not belong to the petitioner and secondly, it is only vacant piece of land and cannot be used unless there is an accom modation on that land. It cannot be treated. as an alternative accommodation where the petitioner can carry on business. 13. In the result the writ petition is allowed and impugned order is quashed with the direction to the appellate Court that it will record a finding as to whether the three other shops are vacant in posses sion of Respondent No. 2. It may also be noted that if other persons are occupying such shops whether they are valid tenants in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Court may also issue notice to such occupants to ascertain this fact. It may also be noted that if other persons are occupying such shops whether they are valid tenants in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Court may also issue notice to such occupants to ascertain this fact. If it is found that the tenants have been subsequently inducted by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner shall be evicted only after any of the shops is made available to the petitioner. In case it is found by the appellate authority the other three shops suggested by the petitioner is under the valid tenancy of other tenants, the petitioner cannot lay any claim for an offer to be made by the landlady. The application was filed for release in the year 1985, and the petitioner should have made effort to find out alternative accommodation. 14. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner gets any other alternative accommodation or the landlady-Respon dent No. 2 herself provides any other ac commodation, the Court shall release the disputed shop in her favour. 15. As the matter is very old, the appellate authority shall decide the matter within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order keeping in view the observations made above. 16. It has also been pointed out that out of four shops, which a re proposed to be demolished and on such site nursing home is to be constructed, in one of the shops one Nathu is a tenant and against him the writ petition is pending before this Court. It is made clear that as regards his shop. I am not passing any order of eviction and it will be subject to the decision in another writ petition. Petition allowed. .