S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Yesterday no one appeared on behalf of tenant-respondents. However, today learned Counsel for tenant appeared and was heard. 2. This is landlords writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant-Respondent No. 3 Sri Surat Singh on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P. A. Case No. 58-A of 1990. Prescribed Authority/j. S. C. C. Saharanpur allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 2-1-1992. Against the said judgment and order tenant-Respondent No. 3 filed R. C. Appeal No. 12 of 1994. VI Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 30-1-1993 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the release application, hence this writ petition by the landlord. 3. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 155/- per month. Appellate Court found that several other shops were available to the landlord in a vacant state where he could settle his son Hari Mohan in business (in the release application need set up was for setting Hari Mohan son of the landlord in business ). Appellate Court pointed out that two shops adjacent to the shop in dispute were available to the landlord which were bigger in size than the shop in dispute. 4. In my opinion, when alternative accommodation, which is equally suitable as the tenanted accommodation sought to be released, is available to the landlord, need of the landlord for the tenanted accommodation cannot be said to be bona fide. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that tenant cannot dictate the landlord to satisfy his need by other means in this regard the following authorities have been cited : 1. Sarla Ahuja v. United Insurance Company, AIR 1999 SC 100 . 2. Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad, (2002) 8 SCC 765 . 3. S. N. Kapoor (dead) By L. Rs. v. Basant Lal Khatri & Ors. , (2002) 1 SCC 329 . In my opinion, the above authorities do not support the petitioner. In Savitri Sahays authority (supra) it has been held that landlord can choose any of his tenants for seeking eviction. 3. S. N. Kapoor (dead) By L. Rs. v. Basant Lal Khatri & Ors. , (2002) 1 SCC 329 . In my opinion, the above authorities do not support the petitioner. In Savitri Sahays authority (supra) it has been held that landlord can choose any of his tenants for seeking eviction. In Sarla Ahujas case (supra) the other building available to the landlord was situate in Calcutta while accommodation sought to be released was situate in Delhi. In S. N. Kapoors authority (supra) also the house available to the landlady was situate in another town. In the said authority it was also observed that some discretion had to be allowed in favour of the landlord and Courts should not impose their own wisdom as to how landlord should arrange his affairs and ought not to be carried away by sympathy for the tenant. 6. It is correct that landlord has to be allowed some discretion for choosing the premises. However, it does not mean that even if equally suitable or even more suitable accommodation is available to the landlord, still he can choose his tenant for eviction merely by saying that he has got complete choice and he desires a particular shop in possession of the tenant for satisfying his need. If it is proved that the accommodation available in a vacant state to the landlord is not suitable for the purpose for which release is sought, then of course, availability of the said accommodation cannot be taken to be a ground for rejection of the release application. 7. In the instant case Appellate Court has found that landlord has got other accommodations available in vacant state and those are more suitable than the accommodation in dispute for the business, which is sought to be established by his son. Accordingly I do not find any error in the findings of the Appellate Court holding the need of the landlord not to be bona fide. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Accordingly I do not find any error in the findings of the Appellate Court holding the need of the landlord not to be bona fide. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. I have held in Khursheeda v. A. D. J. , Allahabad, 2004 (2) JCLR 452 (All) : 2004 (2) ARC 64 and H. M. Kitchlu v. A. D. J. , 2004 (2) ARC 652, that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the Court below, writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Rent of Rs. 155/- per month (inclusive of all taxes) for the shop in question appears to be quite inadequate. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from February, 2006 onward tenant-respondent shall pay rent to the landlord- petitioner @ Rs. 650/- per month (inclusive of all taxes etc.) Petition dismissed. .