ORDER A. N. Verma, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below allowing an application filed by respondent No. 3 for release of the shop in dispute under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent, Letting & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Shortly stated, the relevant facts are these. The respondent No. 3, the landlord of the shop, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act for the release of the shop in dispute on the ground that on the first floor of the building in dispute, the respondent was residing with his family. The respondent landlord was doing milk business prior to 1972, but left the same as it ceased to be profitable. The landlord was doing some business in the firm of his father-in-law in a village three miles away from the town where the shop in dispute is situate. The relations between the landlord and his father-in-law became strained. The landlord had no other shop or place to carry on business. The application was, therefore, moved on the ground that he bona fide needed the shop in dispute for carrying on Arhat business. 3. The application was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that the need of the landlord was not genuine at all. The landlord had let out a portion of the building on a monthly rental of Rs. 450/-. The family of the landlord was a small one and he had enough means to support his family. The tenants on the other hand have earned a goodwill in respect of the shop in dispute and they had no other place where they could conveniently shift their business. 4. The prescribed authority believed the version of the landlord and allowed his application. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal without any success. The appellate court has endorsed the findings of the Prescribed Authority. It has held that the landlord genuinely intends to start business and that at present he is out of employment. The prescribed authority believed the version of the landlord and allowed his application. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal without any success. The appellate court has endorsed the findings of the Prescribed Authority. It has held that the landlord genuinely intends to start business and that at present he is out of employment. As against this, the tenants have a number of shops belonging to them and that in fact they have shifted their business to a shop in Sandhi Ganj Mandi in the same town. On a comparison of respective hardship also, the application of the landlord was entitled to succeed. 6. Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application of the landlord had been allowed on the mere expression of a desire by the landlord that he wished to start Arhat business. He contended that the courts below ought to have examined the alleged need of the landlord objectively. Learned counsel contended that inasmuch as the landlord did not have any experience of Arhat business, his application ought not to have been allowed on the mere declaration by the landlord that he desired to start Arhat business. Learned counsel also challenged the findings of the courts below on the question of comparative hardship likely to be caused on the grant of the application of the landlord. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no merits in this petition. The courts below have not allowed the application of the landlord on a mere ipse dixit of the landlord. They have examined the need of the landlord objectively on the basis of concrete facts established on the record. They have rightly observed that having regard to the fact that the landlord is not doing any business, his previous business having come to an end, the application of the landlord was entitled to succeed as in the view of the courts below, the landlord must have a place of business and on the facts existing on the record, he does not have one. The courts below have, therefore, not allowed the application of the landlord without due consideration of the alleged need of the landlord. 8. The courts below have, therefore, not allowed the application of the landlord without due consideration of the alleged need of the landlord. 8. As regards the capacity and capability of the landlord to start Arhat business also, the learned District Judge has commented that the landlord has eleven years of experience in business, though it may not have been in Arhat business. The learned District Judge has observed that having regard to the age, qualification and equipment of the landlord, he was fit enough to do the business, and that he was not qualified to engage in any other profession. These are perfectly legitimate considerations in allowing an application under Section 21 of the Act. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the landlord does not have any previous experience in Arhat business, in my view, that cannot be a ground per se for holding that the need of the petitioners for doing Arhat business is not genuine. What has to be seen is whether the need of the landlord to do a particular business is genuine, or it is fake. In judging the need while previous experience, may be a relevant consideration, its absence cannot by itself necessarily lead to the conclusion that the need of the landlord must be held to be other than bona fide. 9. Coming to the finding of comparative hardship, I find that the orders passed by the courts below are perfectly, correct and are borne out by the evidence on the record. The concurrent finding given by the courts below that as between the landlord and the tenant, it is the former who would suffer greater hardship appears to be correct and is certainly not vitiated by any error of law. 10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 11. The petitioners are, however, granted six (6) months time within which they will hand over possession of the shop to the landlord.