( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Tyagi, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

( 2 ) IN view of the fact that pure question of law is involved, Sri Tyagi does not want to file counter-affidavit. Thus, this writ petition is heard on merits.

( 3 ) THE landlord-respondent filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) before the prescribed authority for release of the accommodation in question which is a non-residential accommodation wherein the petitioner is carrying on his business. The prescribed authority allowed the application filed by the landlord. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority affirmed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and dismissed the appeal. Thus, this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE petitioner, in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, has stated that this writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that the courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by not considering the question whether need of the landlord can be satisfied by release in part of th