JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—In this writ petition by tenant following two points are involved : (1) Whether landlord respondent No. 3, which is a charitable trust can seek release of the tenanted accommodation in dispute in view of clause (i) of third proviso to Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. (2) Whether residential house can be released for running/extending school in view of clause (ii) of the aforesaid proviso. Third proviso to Section 21 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 is quoted below : “Provided also that no application under clause (a) shall be entertained, (i) for the purposes of a charitable trust, the objects of which provide for discrimination in respect of its beneficiaries on the ground of religion, caste, or place of birth; (ii) in the case of any residential building for occupation for business purposes;” 2. This writ petition arises out of eviction/ release proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by landlord respondent No. 3, Seth Chajja Singh Jhandu Singh Charitable Trust, Meerut through its Secretary against tenant petitioner in the form of P.A. case No. 166 of 1979 on the file of prescribed authority/City Munsif Meerut. 3. Premises in dispute is a house in which tenant petitioner is residing. It is adjacent to the premises in dispute where landlord respondent No. 3 is running a school. In the release application, it was pleaded that in order to extend the school, premises in dispute was required. Release application was allowed on 30.5.1981 against which tenant petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 1981. XII Additional District Judge, Meerut through judgment and order dated 8.9.1987 dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition. 4. Both the Courts below held that in the school being run by landlord respondent No. 3 in the adjoining building there were sixteen classes alongwith office of Principal, library, residence of peon, laboratory and staff room and school had only nine room in its possession hence its need was bona fide. 5. I do not find least error in the said findings. 6. In respect of comparative hardship both the Courts below held that tenant petitioner had an ancestral house. Petitioner had asserted that his ancestral house was in possession of a tenant. 5. I do not find least error in the said findings. 6. In respect of comparative hardship both the Courts below held that tenant petitioner had an ancestral house. Petitioner had asserted that his ancestral house was in possession of a tenant. Prescribed authority had held that by virtue of fourth proviso to Section 21, hardship of the tenant was not to be considered as he had his ancestral house. Appellate Court held that as ancestral house of the petitioner was not in his occupation but in the occupation of a tenant hence the said proviso was not attracted. However appellate Court held that as tenant did not initiate any eviction proceedings against his tenant hence question of comparative hardship was to be decided against him. Apart from it tenant also did not show that what efforts he made to search alternative accommodation after filing of the release application. This also weighed heavily against him. 7. In fact learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the findings of bona fide need or comparative hardship. Accordingly the said findings are confirmed. 8. Learned counsel for tenant petitioner has mainly argued the two points mentioned in the beginning of this judgment. 9. As far as the first point is concerned, it is not tenable for the reasons that landlord respondent No. 3 Trust does not make any distinction amongst its beneficiaries (copy of trust deed/will through which trust was created) is Annexure 4 to the writ petition). In the said deed there is absolutely no restriction on the admission in the school run by the Trust. The only thing which has been stated in the said deed is that "besides this, if an orphan Maheshwari boy who is unable to support himself, is admitted in the pathshala, then the said trustees, Ram Chander and others are at liberty to grant suitable scholarship”. 10. As far as the second point is concerned bar under clause (ii) to third proviso to Section 21 of the Act applies only in respect of occupation for business purpose. Imparting education cannot be said to be business purpose. Even if some profit is made by imparting education still it cannot be said to be business. The main purpose of imparting education is to enlighten the students. Imparting education cannot be said to be business purpose. Even if some profit is made by imparting education still it cannot be said to be business. The main purpose of imparting education is to enlighten the students. If incidentally money is also made in the process still the purpose of imparting the education cannot be said to be business. 11. Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. 12. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that— (1) Within one month from today he files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months, he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. (2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioner to vacate he is required to pay Rs. 3,000/- (at the rate of Rs.500/- per month) as damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the prescribed authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed and deposit of Rs. 3,000/- is not made within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3,000/- the property in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. Petition Dismissed. ———