S. U. KHAN, J, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. First writ petition has been filed by the tenant and the second by the landlords. Both the writ petition are directed against the judgment and order dated 4-8-1988 passed by IV Additional District Judge, Azamgarh in Miscellaneous Appeal (Rent Control Act) No. 7 of 1987, Sri Dutt Dass v. Purshottam. The said appeal was filed against judgment and order dated 2-1-1987 passed by Prescribed Authority/civil Judge, Azamgarh in P. A. case No. 13 of 1985, Purshottam Dass & Ors. v. Dau Dass. The said case had been initiated by the landlords for eviction of the tenant Dau Dass on the ground of bona fide need and dilapidated condition of the building in dispute, which was being used by the tenant for residential as well as commercial purpose. Prescribed Authority held that the building was in a dilapidated condition. Prescribed Authority further held that landlords required the premises in dispute after reconstruction for settling the son of landlord applicant No. 1, Purshottam Das in business. Appellate Court affirmed the finding of dilapidated condition of the building, however, the finding of bona fide need was reversed, hence both landlords as well as tenant filed these writ petitions against the judgment of the Appellate Court. 3. According to the tenant, he was forcibly dispossessed in the year 1993 in spite of stay order granted in his writ petition (first writ petition ). According to the landlord building in dispute fell down of its own in 2002 and thereafter tenant abandoned the same. This much is admitted to both the parties that at least since 2002 building is no more in existence and the site is in possession of the landlord. In respect of alleged dispossession tenant also filed Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 1757 of 1993. The Contempt Application was dismissed on 24-2- 2004. 4. As far as the condition of the building is concerned it need not be decided as admittedly the building has fallen down. 5. As far as the bona fide need of the landlords is concerned, the Appellate Court held that it was proved that landlords were doing business at large scale and were using their residential house as godown for their Kerana business (general merchandise ). 5. As far as the bona fide need of the landlords is concerned, the Appellate Court held that it was proved that landlords were doing business at large scale and were using their residential house as godown for their Kerana business (general merchandise ). It was held that as landlords were doing wholesale business hence the fact that their shop was situated in a narrow lane (Gali) would not make much difference. In my opinion, the findings are erroneous in law. Wholesalers also require shop on the main road. Availability of less suitable shop is no ground to reject release application for the shop on the main road vide C. Prasad v. U. K. Verma & Ors. , AIR 2002 SC 108 . Further, the fact that landlords were using their residential house for commercial purpose fully proved their bona fide need for commercial accommodation. No landlord can be compelled to continue to use portion of his residential house for commercial purpose in order to protect the possession of the tenant. 6. The matter was heard by me on two or three dates and I persuaded the parties to explore the chances of some sort of compromise. A sketch map of the accommodation in dispute has been filed showing the accommodation in dispute. The frontage of the accommodation in dispute was 17 feet and its depth on the one side was 15 feet and on the other side about 26 feet. Learned Counsel for the tenant stated that even if a shop of 7 feet frontage and 10 feet depth towards the west was constructed by the landlord and given on rent to the tenant, the tenant would feel satisfied. Learned Counsel for the tenant further stated that for the newly constructed shop the tenant would be ready to pay good rent. However, the learned Counsel for the landlords stated that landlords expressed regret for not accepting any sort of compromise as their need would not be completely satisfied even by the entire accommodation. It was urged that landlords were not in a position to spare any part of the accommodation in dispute for the tenant. 7. It is also important to note that for several years the tenant is out of possession and he should have arranged alternative accommodation by now. It was urged that landlords were not in a position to spare any part of the accommodation in dispute for the tenant. 7. It is also important to note that for several years the tenant is out of possession and he should have arranged alternative accommodation by now. In view of the facts that need of the landlord is bona fide, building has ceased to exist and the tenant is out of possession for several years, the best course is to close the chapter and award reasonable compensation to the tenant. 8. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition of the tenant and allow the writ petition of the landlord. Release application of the landlord is allowed on the ground of bona fide need. However, it is directed that within three months from today landlord shall pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the tenant. This amount may be paid either through draft or may be deposited before the Prescribed Authority for immediate payment to the tenant. In case the said amount is not paid or deposited within 3 months then tenants writ petition shall stand allowed and the landlords writ petition shall stand dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the first writ petition is dismissed and the second writ petition is allowed. C. M. W. P. No. 16426/88 dismissed. C. M. W. P. No. 22998/88 allowed. .