JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Brief Holder for respondent no.1 and Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.1998 passed by Special Judge/Addl. District Judge, whereby the said court has allowed the appeal of the landlord/respondent. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that petitioners are tenants of the shop situate at Sahukara Line, Haldwani, District Nainital. Landlord/respondent no.2 Smt. Sita Devi and Smt. Draupadi Devi filed an application under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short, the Act) praying for eviction of tenant/petition from the shop situate on the ground floor, details of which has been given in the application. In the application, the applicants/respondents have taken different grounds that the tenant/petitioner Pratap Singh has taken a shop on rent in Naveen Mandi at Bareilly Road, Haldwani and is carrying on business of Arhat of potatoes and apples therein. The opposite party no.1/petitioner has also let out the disputed shop to Pushkar Singh who has started manufacturing sweet, namkeen etc. in the shop. It is further alleged by the landlord that the opposite parties have made material alterations in the building which has diminished its value and utility and have wilfully caused substantial damage to the building in dispute. It is further stated that the building is bonafidely required by the applicants. The building is in dilapidated condition and is required for the purposes of demolition and new construction. It is also alleged that the opposite parties are also chronic defaulter in payment of rent. It is also pleaded that by demolition of said building new construction would be made according to the bye-laws of the local authorities. 4. The application was resisted by the petitioners/tenants by filing objections/written statement alleging that there is no bonafide need of the landlord/respondent no.2. 5. Both the parties led documentary evidence by way of affidavits along with annexure in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidence led by them, the learned Prescribed Authority, vide judgment and order dated 23.1.1995, dismissed the application of landlord/respondent no.2. 6. 5. Both the parties led documentary evidence by way of affidavits along with annexure in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidence led by them, the learned Prescribed Authority, vide judgment and order dated 23.1.1995, dismissed the application of landlord/respondent no.2. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Prescribed Authority, the landlord/respondent no.2 preferred an appeal being Rent Control Appeal No.3/1995, which was heard by Additional District Judge, Nainital, who vide judgment and order dated 4.5.1998, allowed the appeal of landlord/respondent no.2. Hence, the petitioners/tenants have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed before this Court. 8. By perusal of the averments made in the application, it transpires that the landlord has filed a composite application. The landlord has taken grounds of bonafide need and dilapidated condition as well as of default of rent and material alternation. However, while dismissing the application, the learned Prescribed Authority has treated the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. On the other hand, the appellate court, without considering the fact that the application was not maintainable, has allowed the appeal of the landlord/respondent no.2. 9. It is apparent from the record that the application filed by the landlord could not be treated under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act since the pleadings taken are of Section 20 and Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. The application has been rightly rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority but he has also erred in law in treating this application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. Further, there is no need to discuss the appellate court’s order since the appellate court has also misdirected itself by treating the 4 application u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act and thereby releasing the shop on the ground of bonafide need and comparative hardship. 10. In the light of aforesaid, this Court is of the firm opinion that both the courts below have committed error in treating the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The writ petition is liable to be allowed on this sole ground. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.1998 passed by Special Judge/Addl. District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No.3/1995, is set aside. The writ petition is liable to be allowed on this sole ground. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.1998 passed by Special Judge/Addl. District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No.3/1995, is set aside. However, the landlord/respondent no.2 would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Prescribed Authority either under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act or Section 21(1)(b) of the Act or to file a suit u/s 20 of the Act before the Judge, S.C.C., if so advised.