M.P.Saxena, J. - (1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of the, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regu lation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). Briefly stated the facts are that Gokul Chand and Nauratan Lal are real brothers and Jaswant Singh, Birendra Singh, Kishan Singh, Narendra Singh and Laxmi Singh are the sons of Gokul Chand. Gokul Chand and Nauratan Lal jointly own a house. One room of this building was let out to the petitioner in which he was doing work of a goldsmith. At first Gokul Chand, Nauratan Lal and Jas want Singh moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the room in possession of the petitioner. Later on the re maining sons of Gokul Chand also joinad as applicants. The appli cation for release was moved on the ground that as a result of private partition between Gokul Chand and Nauratan Lal one portion of the building was given to Gokul Chand and another one was given to Nauratan Lal. The room in dispute is situate in the portion allotted to Gokul Chand. The latter's son occupies a Baithak in the portion which fell in the share of Nauratan Lal in the partition. In that shop he had installed certain machines. It was agreed at 'the time of partition that the son of Gokul Chand will vacate that Baithaks. Hence there was necessity of the room in possession of the tenant-petitioner so that the son of Gokul Chand may instal his machines and carry on his business. It' was also alleged that if the room in the possession of the son of Gokul Chand was not vacated there will be litigation and relations between the two brothers and members of their family lies will become strained. It was also stated that the tenant had purchased a house in which he can conveniently carry on his business without any detriment. The petitioner contested that application, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner had bona fide need for the room and that he had purchased only 1/3rd portion of a house in which he cannot carry on his business. The prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the land lords had bona fide need and the tenant can carry on business in his house. In his opinion there will be greater hardship to the landlord by the rejection of the application that it will cause to the tenant if the application allowed. The release application was accordingly allowed. The tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act hut unsuccessfully. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sri C.P. Varshney who had decided the case as Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to function as Prescribed Authority in respect of properties situated within the area of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. The contention is liable to be rejected for a number of rea sons. In the first place, it was not laised before the Prescribed Au thority or in the memo of appeal before the District Judge. It is being raised in this Court for the first time which cannot be permit ted. The authority of Sri Varshney to function as Prescribed Au thority in respect of cases relating to buildings situate in the area of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, was questioned in Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 1808 of 1976 decided on April 12, 1974. It appears that Sri Varshney was appointed as Prescribed Authority on March 21, 1974 and certain applications were sent to him for disposal. From April 1, 1974 the new Criminal Procedure Code came into force and there was complete separation of the judi ciary from the Executive. Therefore, on April 10, 1974 the District Magistrate. Agra, by his another order appointed Sri Var shney again as Prescribed Authority. Some doubt was entertained about the competence of an executive magistrate to function as Pres cribed Authority which led to correspondence between the D. M., the State Government and the High Court. Certain amendments were introduced in the Act by Act IX of 1974 with effect from Sep tember 1, 1974. Under this Act the powers of appointment of the Prescribed Authority was withdrawn from the District Magistrate and vested in the State Government. The State Government was also empowered to appoint even an executive magistrate as a Pres cribed Authority. Therefore, in January 1975 another order ap pointing Sri Varshney as Prescribed Authority for certain areas of Agra which did not include Nagar Mahapalika area was passed. The case relating to the petitioner V- throughout remained pending on the file of Sri Varshney. He heard the matter on merit and decided it against the tenant. The appeal has also been decided against him. The objection now raised relates to territorial jurisdiction of Sri Varshney. Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable to the proceedings before the Pres cribed Authority in entirety but it is settled that the principles of this Code can be applied to proceedings of a civil nature. Section 21 of the Code lays down that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate court or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest oppor tunity unless there has been failure of justice. In the instant case the objection was not taken before the Prescribed Authority or the District Judge. No prejudice is alleged to have been caused to the applicant Therefore, no interference in the order is needed. Lastly, an appeal wag filed before the competent court and the order of the Prescribed Authority merged in the order of the District Judge. As held in the case of Man singh V. Bir Sahai A.I.R. 1973 All 435. initial Jurisdictional defect stands cured by decision in appeal. Therefore, the plea has no force and the orders cannot be queshed on this score. On merit the petitioner has no case because both the authorities have given clear findings about bona fide needs of the landlords and tenant. Their findings are based on proper appraisement of evidence and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition is rejected with costs on parties.;