JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—The second writ petition was allowed on 1.8.2007 by Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. The said order was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4088-4089 of 2007, decided on 6.9.2007 and High Court was directed to hear and decide the writ petition again. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties in both the writ petitions. 3. First writ petition has been filed by tenant Ram Chandra. Second writ petition has been filed by landlords Sri Krishan Bhagwan and Sri Hari Krishan Gupta against another tenant Shyam Sunder son of Gopal Das (Proceedings were initiated against Gopal Das. After his death before the Courts below, he was substituted by Shyam Sunder). Premises in occupation of both the tenants Ram Chandra and Shyam Sunder are adjacent and landlords of both the premises are same, i.e. Sri Krishan Bhagwan and Hari Krishan Gupta. Property in dispute in both the cases are adjacent shops. Landlords initiated eviction/release proceedings against both the tenants on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. Release application against Ram Chandra was registered as P.A. Case No. 66 of 1995 and against Gopal Das (since deceased and survived by Shyam Sunder) as P.A. Case No. 67 of 1995. Release application against Ram Chandra was dismissed on 28.7.1999 by Prescribed Authority. However, release application filed against Gopal Das was allowed by Prescribed Authority on 3.7.2000. Against order of Prescribed Authority dated 28.7.1999, landlords respondents filed R.C. Appeal No. 26 of 1999, Sri Krishan Bhagwan and another v. Ram Chandra. XIIth A.D.J., Moradabad, through judgment and order dated 3.2.2000 allowed the appeal of the landlords, set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlords. First writ petition by the tenant is directed against the said order of the appellate Court. 4. Against order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application of the landlords against tenant, Shyam Sunder son of Gopal Das the tenant filed R.C. Appeal No. 19 of 2000. A.D.J./Special Judge, NDPS Act, Moradabad allowed the R.C. Appeal No.19 of 2000 through judgment and order dated 1.4.2004 and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, hence second writ petition by the landlords. 5. A.D.J./Special Judge, NDPS Act, Moradabad allowed the R.C. Appeal No.19 of 2000 through judgment and order dated 1.4.2004 and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, hence second writ petition by the landlords. 5. As far as decision of the appellate Court challenged through first writ petition is concerned, the appellate Court fully approved the findings of the Prescribed Authority holding the need of the landlords to be bona fide and also approved the findings of the Prescribed Authority to the effect that balance of hardship lay in favour of the landlords. However, appellate Court allowed the appeal of the tenant, through order dated 1.4.2004, only and only on the ground that the Presiding Officer of the Prescribed Authority, which had allowed the release application of the landlord, was not authorized to hear applications under Section 21 of the Act. The release application was allowed on 3.7.2000 by Sri R.M. Sharma. On the said date, Sri Sharma was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate. Prior to that Sri Sharma was Additional J.S.C.C. and authorized to hear cases under Section 21 of the Act also. 6. "Prescribed Authority is defined under Section 3(e) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below : “3 (e) "Prescribed Authority” means a Civil Judicial Officer or Judicial Magistrate authorised by the District Judge to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the prescribed authority under this Act, and different such officers may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases, and the District Judge may recall any case from any such officer and may transfer it for disposal to any other such officer.” 7. The P.A. Case No. 67 of 1995 had been transferred by the District Judge to the Court of Sri R.M. Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, placing reliance upon authority of this Court reported in 1995 (1) ARC 154, Smt. Sunder Lal v. VIth A.D.J., Agra and others, lower appellate Court held that unless the transferee Court is otherwise having jurisdiction already conferred upon him by the District Judge to hear cases under Section 21 of the Act, mere order of transfer by District Judge will not confer jurisdiction upon such Presiding Officer to hear and decide case under Section 21 of the Act. In the said authority, it was also held that just for deciding one or few cases, a particular Presiding Officer cannot be conferred the jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority by District Judge. 8. Respectfully, I do not agree with the view taken in the authority of Smt. Sunder Lal (supra). Under Section 3(e), District Judge is authorized to appoint any civil judicial officer or Judicial Magistrate to exercise the powers of Prescribed Authority and different such officers may be authorized in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases. Accordingly, even for a single case, a Judicial Officer or Judicial Magistrate may be authorized by the District Judge to act as Prescribed Authority. In an earlier authority of this Court reported in 1982 ARC 530, Awadh Kumar Pradhan v. Ist Civil Judge, Kanpur, it has categorically been held that even a single case under Section 21 of the Act can be transferred to a Judicial Officer, who may not have any power to decide such cases through the earlier general order of District Judge. Hon’ble N.D. Ojha, J. in the said authority of Awadh Kumar Pradhan held that principles of Section 24 (5), C.P.C. would apply in such situation. 9. Unfortunately, the authority of Awadh Kumar Pradhan was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Judge, who decided the case of Smt. Sunder Lal. Accordingly, in my opinion, Sri R.M. Sharma had full jurisdiction and authority to decide the case under Section 21 of the Act giving rise to the instant writ petition. 10. Moreover, on the transfer application, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the tenants’ counsel made the following endorsement : “No objection in transfer of case to the Court of Sri R.N. Sharma, CJM. 5.6.2000.” 11. As both the release applications were filed for settling the son of petitioner No. 2 in business, hence it was desirable that both should have been consolidated, however it was not done. There is absolutely no error in the findings of bona fide need recorded in both the cases. Son of petitioner No. 2 is neither doing any independent business nor is in employment anywhere. Even if he is assisting his father in dry-cleaning business, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to start separate independent business. There is absolutely no error in the findings of bona fide need recorded in both the cases. Son of petitioner No. 2 is neither doing any independent business nor is in employment anywhere. Even if he is assisting his father in dry-cleaning business, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to start separate independent business. Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 532 , Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim; AIR 2003 SC 780 , Sushila v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan and others, 2007 (4) SCC 465 has held that every member of landlord’s family is entitled to do independent/separate business and he cannot be compelled to participate in the family business. 12. As far as writ petition relating to the tenant Shyam Sunder (second writ petition) is concerned, both the Courts below held that release order passed against other tenant Ram Chandra could not be taken into consideration as the same was under-challenge before the High Court (in the first writ petition). 13. The shop in possession of Shyam Sunder has got a frontage of 6.5 feet while the shop in possession of Ram Chandra has got a frontage of about 10 feet. Landlord is entitled to use better shop in preference to less suitable shop even if the less suitable shop is in vacant state and landlord is seeking eviction of a tenant from more suitable shop vide AIR 2002 SC 108 , Chandrika Prasad v. Umesh Kumar Verma. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that landlord has fully proved his bona fide need for the shop in possession of tenant Ram Chandra, which is in dispute in the first writ petition. The lower appellate Court has rightly held the need of the landlord to be bona fide. Question of comparative hardship has also been properly decided. As the tenant did not make any efforts to search alternative accommodation, hence question of hardship was decided against the tenant Ram Chandra. This finding is perfectly in consonance with the Supreme Court authority reported in AIR 2003 SC 2713 , Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada. 14. Accordingly, first writ petition is dismissed. 15. As the tenant did not make any efforts to search alternative accommodation, hence question of hardship was decided against the tenant Ram Chandra. This finding is perfectly in consonance with the Supreme Court authority reported in AIR 2003 SC 2713 , Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada. 14. Accordingly, first writ petition is dismissed. 15. Tenant-petitioner Ram Chandra is granted six months time to vacate provided that : (1) Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority 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 landlords-respondents. (2) For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 12,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month) as rent/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 landlords-respondents. 16. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual eviction. 17. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 12,000 the accommodation 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. 3000/- per month since after six months till actual eviction. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application under Section 23 of the Act. 18. As far as second writ petition against Shyam Sunder is concerned, in my opinion, the effect of release of shop in possession of Ram Chandra in favour of the landlord on the case of Shyam Sunder is to be decided. 18. As far as second writ petition against Shyam Sunder is concerned, in my opinion, the effect of release of shop in possession of Ram Chandra in favour of the landlord on the case of Shyam Sunder is to be decided. It is to be decided as to whether the need for settling son of petitioner No. 2 stands fully satisfied by release of the shop in possession of tenant Ram Chandra or additional accommodation is bonafidely required and the need for the same may be satisfied by releasing the shop in possession of the tenant Shyam Sunder. 19. Accordingly, second writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the appellate Court is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the lower appellate Court to decide only the above aspect, i.e. whether need of the landlord stands fully satisfied by release of the shop in possession of the tenant or the shop in possession of Shyam Sunder tenant is also required to be released. No other point shall be considered by the lower appellate Court. Finding of comparative hardship is confirmed and it is also held that the Presiding Officer of the Court of Prescribed Authority, who decided the release application had full jurisdiction to decide the case. 20. During pendency of appeal eviction of tenant/appellant Shyam Sunder shall remain stayed provided that w.e.f. October, 2008 he deposits rent before the lower appellate Court @ Rs.1500/- per month by 7th of each succeeding month. This direction is being issued in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors, 2005 (1) SCC 705 . ————