In determining whether a landlord has a bona fide need for a tenanted accommodation and in considering the comparative hardship of the parties, the court must consider all the relevant factors.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 10th Sept. 1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar, releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlord-respondents in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 6-11-1993 passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the said order in appeal.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are tenants of shop No. 3 at monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00 in a portion of Premises No. 100 Martinganj, Muzafarnagar. Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 are landlords of the said premises. The property No. 100, Martinganj was jointly purchased by Kishan Chand and his three sons, namely, Gopal Krishna, Sarvesh Kumar and Alok Kumar, by registered sale deed dated 4/08/1975. After purchase of the property in the year 1977 they filed an application purporting to be under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act for demolition and new construction of the shops and other constructions of that property against Hans Raj, the father of the petitioners, and on another tenant, Har Prasad. The parties entered into a compromise on 12/01/1977 and in pursuance of the said compromise it was agreed that the landlords will construct the shops as provided under the terms of the compromise and after the construction of the shops the same shall be given to Hans Raj on rent.

( 3 ) PARAGRAPH 7 of the said compromise provided that the landlords shall not evict the tenant for 11 years in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 21 of U. P Act No. 13 of 1972. The Prescribed Authority passed the order in terms of the compromise. The shops were constructed by the landlords. Hans Raj, the father of the petitioners, was given possession of the disputed shop after its construction.

( 4 ) ON 4/02/1988 Kishan Chand and his sons respondents Nos. 1 to 3, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the disputed shop on the allegation that Kishan Chand and Sarvesh Kumar were doing Sarafa business in shop No. 4, Bhagat Singh Road, where Gopal Krishna was doing business of photostat in back portion, of the same as temporary arrangement. The extent of the shop at 4, Bhagat Singh Road was only 6-9" in width and its depth was 36. The width was too short and as there was no other arrangment for carrying on business by Gopal Krishna he started business of photostat on back portion as a temporary arrangement. Gopal Krishna required the disputed shop for carrying on grocery business.

( 5 ) THE application was contested by the petitioners. They alleged that Gopal Krishna was already established in photostat business at Shop No. 4, Bhagat Singh Road, Muzaffarnagar and does not require the disputed shop. Property No. 100, Martinganj was never partitioned. The partition amongst the co-sharers, if any, is fictitious and collusive Ashok Kumar and Vijai Kumar have tea shop in the disputed premises which is the source of livelihood of the entire family. Sanjai Kumar was in service and the other two brothes were carrying on business on a road Patri. They have neither any alternative accommodation nor could find out any to carry on their business.

( 6 ) PRESCRIBED Authority after considering the material evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need of Gopal Krishna for grocery business in the disputed shop was bona fide and genuine. The photostat business which he is carrying on at shop No. 4, Bhagat Singh Road, was insufficient and only is a stop gap arrangement. He also considered the hardship which may caused to the petitioners and allowed the application on 10-9-1992. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the appellate authority on 6-11-1993.

( 7 ) I have heard Sri K. M. Dayal, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Sri P. K. Jain learned counsel for the respondents.

( 8 ) LEARNED, counsel for the petitioners assailed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and t