Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Tenant Swaraj Kumar has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision dated 19.9.2005 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 2004, Arvind Kumar v. Swaraj Kumar, passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge Moradabad allowing release application, preferred on behalf of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

2. Petitioner has been tenant of non residential accommodation on monthly rent of Rs. 700/- per month situated at opposite H.S.B. Inter College, Moradabad wherein he has been doing his extensive business of brass manufacturing. Arvind Kumar landlord filed application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 20.10.2003 for release of premises in question in occupation of the tenant for settling his two sons claiming them to be unemployed. Said release application was contested by the petitioner by filing his written statement on 7.1.2004 and therein plea was taken that petitioner was running his business since 1973 and landlord is not at all in need of accommodation and need set up by the landlord is totally farce and sham. Plea was taken that original landlord is Devi Saran and he has got various properties at his disposal and apart from the same Arvind Kumar is having big factory in the name and style “Classic Collection”, wherein his two sons are also engaged with large number of servant. Affidavit was filed by Arvind Kumar on 20.1.2004 taking stand that his sons are adult and unemployed and are to be involved in the business for which the disputed accommodation is required. Said affidavit was countered by the petitioner by filing affidavit on 1.3.2004. Two sons for whose benefit release application has been moved, also filed affidavit on 17.4.2004 reiterating the same that they want to do their business separately and they have no accommodation and the disputed accommodation is suited for their business. Apart from this petitioner contended that various affidavits have been filed by the parties to substantiate their respective claim. The Prescribed Authority on 26.7.2004 rejected the release application filed by the landlord. Prescribed Authority mentioned that as landlord has not disclosed as to what business his sons will carry out and as to what was the extent of accommodation required by them in this background need is not bonafide and genuine and rejected the application. Against the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 26.7.2004, the landlord preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 2004 under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and said appeal was allowed on 31.3.2005, by mentioning that need of landlord was bonafide and genuine and he would suffer greater hardship. Against the said judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41729 of 2005 (Sri Swaraj Kumar v. Arvind Kumar) had been filed before this Court, said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27.5.2005.

3. Before this Court arguments are advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provision of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, it was incumbent on the part of the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority before directing release of the accommodation in dispute to consider as to whether the release of the part of the accommodation will serve the purpose of the landlord and tenant both and if it would have come to the conclusion that the release of part of the accommodation will serve the purpose, it should direct for release of part of the accommodation not of entire. Other issues were also raised, but since the point of part release of the accommodation was accepted by this Court, the other points were not discussed and matter was remanded back by this Court by mentioning that considering the fact and argument and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Court writ petition deserves to be allowed. Order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and matter w