Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) INSPITE of sufficient service respondent No. 3 who was applicant for allotment has not appeared. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord -Trust/Mandir. This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.7.1983 passed by R.C. and E.O., Kanpur through which release application of petitioner -Trust/Mandir under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was rejected. The said order was challenged through Rent Revision No. 210 of 1983. Revision was also dismissed by VIIth A.D.J., Kanpur on 6.11.1985. The said Revisional Court's order is also under challenge in the instant writ petition. Initially, Tara Devi was tenant of the accommodation in dispute". She died issueless and the actual possession of the property in dispute reverted back to the landlord -petitioner. Landlord -petitioner started using the said property for storing the material, goods and articles required for repair etc. Under section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 release may be sought by trustee -landlord for the objects of the trust. Repairing the building cannot be said to be a purpose which is not connected with the object of the trust. R.C. and E.O./Additional Nagar Khad Adhikari rejected the application on the ground that a big tehkhana was available to the trust for storing the requisite goods. It was not the business of the R.C. and E.O. to find the other ways and means through which landlord could satisfy its need. In release matter under section 16 of the Act liberal approach is required as neither the interest of any sitting tenant is involved nor the need of the prospective allottee can be looked into. It is always better to have the goods on the ground floor so that they may be taken out easily whenever required. Learned Counsel for petitioner has further argued that access to Tehkhana is through an accommodation which is in occupation of another tenant hence it is quite inconvenient to use the Tehkhana frequently. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed, both the impugned orders are set aside and property in dispute is released in favour of the plaintiff -landlord. As the building has been released hence allotment order dated 29.7.1983 affirmed in Rent Revision No. 204 of 1983 by VIIth A.D.J. through order dated 6.11.1985 becomes meaningless.;