S. U. KHAN, J. Heard Sri T. B. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. B. Saran, learned senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This is landlords writ petition and is directed against orders passed by R. C. and E. O. rejecting release application of petitioner landlord under Section 16 of U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and simultaneously allotting the name of respondent No. 3 and order of Revisional Court affirming the said order. 3. Landlord petitioner filed ejectment suit against his previous tenant of the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop on the ground of sub-letting. Respondent No. 3 Dinesh Garg and some other person also applied for allotment of the shop in dispute, contending therein that the said shop was deemed vacant on the ground that it had been sub-let by the tenant. 4. R. C. and E. O. /d. S. O. Saharanpur declared the shop in dispute to be vacant on 10-2-1983. Office of R. C. and E. O. was closed on 11, 12 and 13th February, 1983 due to holidays and on 14-2-1983 landlord filed release application under Section 16 of the Act. It was rejected on 15-2-1983. According to the landlord no objection had been filed against the release application filed by him. By the same order dated 15-2- 1983 shop in dispute was allotted to respondent No. 3. Against order dated 15-2-1983 two revisions were filed under Section 18 of the Act. One by the landlord which was numbered as R. C. Revision No. 97 of 1983, the other by the earlier tenant Narendra Dev which was registered as R. C. Revision No. 92 of 1983. District Judge Saharanpur by judgment and order dated 31-3-1983 dismissed both the revisions, hence this writ petition by the landlord. The judgment of the Revisional Court runs into 98 paragraphs in 70 pages. 5. R. C. and E. C. as well as learned District Judge minutely dissected the need of the landlord and thoroughly compared the same with the need of the allottee respondent No. 3. 6. As held in the Full Bench authority of this Court in Talib Hasan v. A. D. J. , 1986 (12) ALR 113 (FB) and by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Sharma v. G. Gaur, AIR 2002 SC 2204 . 6. As held in the Full Bench authority of this Court in Talib Hasan v. A. D. J. , 1986 (12) ALR 113 (FB) and by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Sharma v. G. Gaur, AIR 2002 SC 2204 . Prospective allottee cannot be heard at the time of consideration of release application of landlord under Section 16 of the Act. He cannot even oppose the need of the landlord. He can also neither refute the evidence adduced by the landlord nor adduced any evidence regarding bona fide need of the landlord. In the instant case not only allottee was permitted to adduce the evidence in rebuttal of bona fide need of landlord but even the need of landlord and prospective allottee were compared by the Courts below. It is patently against the letter and spirit of Section 16 of the Act. Concept of bona fide need under Section 21 on the one hand and under Section 16 on the other hand is quite different. Under Section 21 interest of sitting tenant is to be safeguarded while under Section 16 there is no sitting tenant and prospective allottee has got no say in the matter unless release application of the landlord is rejected. 7. For release under Section 16 simple need is sufficient while under Section 21 something more is required. It is basically a question of gravity. In a particular case need of the landlord may not be grave enough for release under Section 21, however, it may be sufficient to pass release order under Section 16 of the Act. As held by the Supreme Court in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR 2003 SC 2713 , degree of necessity lies in the realm of comparative hardship which concept is wholly foreign to release proceedings under Section 16 of the Act. 8. It may be noted that allotment application by respondent No. 3 Deepak Garg was filed prior to filing of suit by landlord- petitioner against the previous tenant Narendra Dev on the ground of sub-letting. 9. R. C. and E. O. severely criticized the landlord for his alleged misconduct in the proceedings. According to R. C. E. O. landlord ought to have rendered assistance in declaration of vacancy, instead, he opposed the same. 9. R. C. and E. O. severely criticized the landlord for his alleged misconduct in the proceedings. According to R. C. E. O. landlord ought to have rendered assistance in declaration of vacancy, instead, he opposed the same. R. C. and E. O. further held that filing of release application after declaration of vacancy showed that need of landlord was not bona fide otherwise he should have filed release application earlier. R. C. E. O. also observed that first landlord contested the proceedings through his previous tenant Narendra Dev and when Narendra Dev failed, landlord came forward with release application, hence landlord wanted to eat the cake and also to have that. The criticism of R. C. E. O. was not only unwarranted but also irrelevant. There is no legal bar against filing release application after declaration of vacancy. Under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules framed under the Act, R. C. E. O. is required to issue notice to the landlord after declaration of vacancy. The only purpose of this notice is to inform the landlord about vacancy declaration order and provide him opportunity to file release application under Section 16 of the Act in case landlord so desires. 10. Accordingly, absolutely no fault can be found with the landlord for not filing release application prior to declaration of vacancy. 11. In the release application, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it was stated in para 3 thereof that landlord wanted to settle his young son Pradeep Kumar Bhargava in business who had been sanctioned an agency for generating sets for western U. P. and for that he required a show-room and an office. R. C. E. O. held that landlord did not show that from where he would arrange money for the business for his son. Even in release proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, against a sitting tenant there is no such requirement that landlord must show ready cash for starting the business vide G. C. Kapoor v. N. K. Bhasin, 2001 (45) ALR 808 (SC ). R. C. E. O. further mentioned that the age of the son was not mentioned and it was not mentioned that what he was doing and what experience for the proposed business he had. In the release application it was mentioned that landlord required the shop in dispute for his younger son. R. C. E. O. further mentioned that the age of the son was not mentioned and it was not mentioned that what he was doing and what experience for the proposed business he had. In the release application it was mentioned that landlord required the shop in dispute for his younger son. Mentioning the exact age is not at all necessary. Even though prospective allottee respondent No. 3 was wrongly permitted to adduce evidence, not only for his own need but in rebuttal of the need of the landlord also, however, respondent No. 3 could not point out that the son of the landlord was gainfully engaged anywhere. It is interesting to note that R. C. E. O. found the need of respondent No. 3 for allotment to be valid mainly on the ground that in case he had not been in need of the shop then he would not have wasted his time in pursuing his allotment application. The less said the better about such approach. R. C. E. O. neither asked the age of respondent No. 3 nor about his financial resources. R. C. E. O. mentioned that respondent No. 3 was doing business of brick kiln and also selling coal. However, there is no mention in the said order that till the allotment order respondent No. 3 was carrying on his business from which place and whether that was sufficient for him or not. The judgment of the R. C. E. O. clearly demonstrates that he was pre-determined to allot the shop in dispute to the respondent No. 3. 12. The Revisional Court in para 80 of its judgment mentioned that landlord had stated that various financial institutions were ready to extend their financial help to run the proposed business of his son from the shop in dispute. Revisional Court in the same para also mentioned that Deepak Garg, respondent No. 3 had filed counter-affidavit against the affidavit of the landlord and the R. C. E. O. after considering both the affidavits rejected the release application and allowed the allotment application. Lower Revisional Court was un-necessarily impressed by the filing of the suit by the landlord against his previous tenant (para 84 ). Revisional Court in para 85 of its judgment did not find any thing unusual in the undue haste shown by RCEO in allotting the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3. Lower Revisional Court was un-necessarily impressed by the filing of the suit by the landlord against his previous tenant (para 84 ). Revisional Court in para 85 of its judgment did not find any thing unusual in the undue haste shown by RCEO in allotting the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3. Revisional Court in para 86 held that landlord did not file the affidavit of his son for whose need release was sought. Filing of such an affidavit is never necessary. Some documents in respect of proposed business were filed before the Revisional Court. Revisional Court held that the said documents should have been filed before the R. C. and E. O. where landlord had full opportunity to do the same. Revisional Court did not realize that R. C. and E. O. decided and rejected the release application on the very next day. (It was filed on 14-2-1983 and rejected on 15-2-1983 ). Landlord filed the affidavit of his son before the Revisional Court. In the affidavit son of the landlord stated that he passed B. Sc. in 1978. Revisional Court while holding the need of the landlord not to be bona fide also took into consideration the fact that son of the landlord did not state that what he was doing from 1978 till 1983. This reasoning is also not tenable. If a person is unemployed for few years due to want of proper accommodation, there must be greater justification for allowing the release application. Instead of Revisional Court took it to be a ground to reject the release application. 13. The entire approach of both the Courts below is utterly erroneous in law. Such approach is not warranted even in proceedings for release against sitting tenant under Section 21 of the Act. As held in the earlier part of this judgment for release under Section 16 simple need is sufficient. The allegation of the landlord that his son was not doing anything was not denied. There was nothing on record to show that the said allegation was wrong. None of the two Courts below found the said allegation to be wrong. What else was required to be proved by the landlord to show his bona fide need to settle his son in business? 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Release application of the landlord stands allowed. 15. None of the two Courts below found the said allegation to be wrong. What else was required to be proved by the landlord to show his bona fide need to settle his son in business? 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Release application of the landlord stands allowed. 15. During the course of arguments I had asked the parties to explore the chances of compromise. Shop in dispute is quite big. The dimensions of the shop are about 37 feet x 37 feet. Total area is about 130 sq. yard. Learned Counsel for the allottee respondent No. 3 stated that his client was ready to purchase the shop fpr Rs. 10 lakhs. Learned Counsel for landlord-petitioner stated that his client was not inclined to accept the said offer of selling the shop in dispute to respondent No. 3. 16. Alongwith written submissions on behalf of respondent No. 3 an order of R. C. and E. O. dated 28-4- 1983 has been filed through which rent of the allotted shop had been fixed at Rs. 30/- per month. In my opinion, shop in dispute which is situated at Court Road Saharanpur and has got the dimensions of 37 x 37, Rs. 30/- rent is virtually as well as actually no rent. However, in this regard the Court does not propose to pass any order. In some cases while setting aside illegal allotment orders, I have directed for payment of reasonable damages for the entire period since taking possession till actual vacation. However, those were the cases of house grabbing. The impugned allotment order is patently erroneous in law however the action of respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be house grabbing. Moreover, on the suggestion of the Court the respondent No. 3 made a seemingly reasonable offer for purchasing the shop in dispute for Rs. 10 Lakhs, which was declined by the landlord. In view of these facts, no direction for damages from the date of possession till date is being issued. 17. Tenant-respondent No. 3 is granted six months time to vacate provided that : (1) Within one month from today he files an undertaking before the R. C. and E. O. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-petitioner. Tenant-respondent No. 3 is granted six months time to vacate provided that : (1) Within one month from today he files an undertaking before the R. C. and E. O. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-petitioner. (2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the respondent No. 3 to vacate he is required to pay Rs. 12,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the R. C. E. O. and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-petitioner. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court under Section 18 (3) of the Act after one month. In case respondent No. 3 does not file undertaking and deposit Rs. 12,000/- within one month then since after one month till actual vacation respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Similarly, if after filing undertaking and deposit of Rs. 12,000/-, shop in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then since after six months till actual vacation respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month. This amount may be recovered under Rule 24 of the Rules framed under the Act and for the said purpose, certified copy of this judgment shall be treated to be a certificate of recovery in Form No. G under Rule 24 (2 ). Petition allowed. .