N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioners are the landlords of an accommodation of which respondents 3 and 4 are the tenants. An application was made by the petitioners for release of the said accommodation under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The application was opposed by the respondents 3 and 4. Before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioners offered premises No. 88/82, Chamanganj, Kanpur to the tenants as an alternative accommodation. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application as against Mumtaz Khan respondent No. 4. He took the view that the accommodation, which was being offered by the petitioners, was suitable for the needs of the respondent No. 4. The Prescribed Authority, however, dismissed the application as against Mohammad Ibrahim respondent No. 3. Two appeals were filed against that orderone by the petitioners and the other by Mumtaz Khan. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal of Mumtaz Khan and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved the petitioners have instituted the present Writ Petition.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioners that the need of the petitioners was bona fide and pressing and the application under section 21 should have been allowed in respect of both the accommodations occupied by respondents 3 and 4. In so far as respondent No. 3 Mohammad Ibrahim is concerned, the finding recorded by the prescribed Authority as well as the Additional District Judge is that he will be put to greater hardship in case he was evicted from the accommodation in dispute occupied by him than the hardship to which the petitioners may he put in case their application was dismissed as against the said respondent. This finding is a finding of fact and cannot be challenged in a writ petition.
(3.) In regard to the accommodation occupied by Mumtaz Khan it was urged by counsel for the petitioners that the Additional District Judge committed a manifest error of law in setting aside the order of the Prescribed Authority without considering the effect of the offer made by the petitioners that premises No. 88/82 aforesaid may be made available to the tenant as an alternative accommodation. According to counsel, in refusing to consider this aspect of the matter, the Additional District Judge has over-looked the provisions contained in rule 16(1)(f) of the rules made under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.;