ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner is the landlord, respondent No. 3 is the tenant. The property in dispute is a shop situate in Bulandshahr. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that he was due to retire on 30th June. 1978 and thereafter it would become necessary for him to engage himself in some business to earn his livelihood. The applicant did not want to depend upon his three sons who are all employed. It was alleged that he wanted to start Crockery business. The application was contested by the respondent No. 3. The Prescribed Authority held that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and genuine. It was further found that greater hardship would be caused to the tenant from the grant of the application than to the landlord in case the application is rejected. On this finding, the Prescribed Authority dismissed the application on 29th September, 1978. Against the said judgment dated 29th September, 1978 an appeal was filed under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal on 12th May, 1979. The judgment dated 12th May, 1979 has been impugned in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the findings recorded by the lower appellate court that the requirement of the petitioner is not bona-fide and genuine is vitiated as the finding is based on an irrelevant consideration, namely, on a consideration of the income of the petitioner. According to the contention of the petitioner this could not have been considered by the courts while considering the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. 4. The application of the petitioner was based on the ground that he was to retire on 20th June. 1978 and thereafter it would become necessary for him to engage in some business to earn his livelihood and as such he wanted to start crockery business in the shop in dispute. 4. The application of the petitioner was based on the ground that he was to retire on 20th June. 1978 and thereafter it would become necessary for him to engage in some business to earn his livelihood and as such he wanted to start crockery business in the shop in dispute. Since the own case of the petitioner was that the sources of his income were insufficient for him to earn his livelihood and therefore, he required the shop in dispute, the courts below were justified in examining the sources of income of the landlord and thereafter recording findings whether the need set up by the landlord was bona fide or not. The income of the landlord was, therefore, a relevant consideration. Both the Prescribed Authority as well as the lower appellate court have found that the petitioner has sufficient income to maintain himself after retirement and the need set up in the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not bona fide and genuine. This clearly is a finding of fact and I do not find any error in the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in support of his submission on Ved Prakash v. Naresh Chand, 1977 (UP) RCC 398. In the case of Ved Prakash (supra) this court took the view that the consideration of sources of income of persons other than the landlord was an irrelevant consideration. The principle laid down in this case does not apply to the facts of the present case. Here the petitioner is the landlord. His own case was that he wanted to open a business of crockery for the purposes of his livelihood. The court has only considered the sources of income of the petitioner landlord to come to the conclusion that he did not require opening of another business. The sources of income of persons other than the petitioner-landlord has not been considered. In the circumstances, the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him. In the result I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Both the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court have found that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide and genuine. In the result I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Both the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court have found that the need of the petitioner was not bona fide and genuine. It has been further found that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent No. 3 in case the application is allowed than the petitioner in case the application is dismissed. These are clearly findings of fact. 7. In the result, I do not find any force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.