JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - In this landlord's petition, arising out of proceedings initiated for shop, under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, as it was bonafide needed for carrying on business of his sons and grandsons, the controversy centres round the finding recorded by appellate authority that the need of petitioners was not genuine and he has not come within clean hands. 2. For deciding either of these it is essential to narrate the facts in brief. In the application filed by petition, he based his claim mainly on three circumstances necessity of shop for his two sons, Om Prakash and Shital Prasad who were unemployed and were keen to do business, moral responsibility of setting his grandsons Vinod and Arvind Kumar, sons of his eldest son Ram Prasad who due to paucity of accommodation, to carry on business, shifted to Gorakhpur with his father-in-law, but whose sons were anxious to do business, sub-letting of shop after bifurcating it without petitioners consent and availability of opposite party's own godown and three shops in a different locality. Although all these were denied by opposite party and it was claimed that Om Prakash was running printing press and Shital Prasad a shop of general merchandise but what impressed the prescribed authority most was the goodwill which opposite party most have earned, therefore, he passed order directing opposite party to let out to petitioner from his own shop area equivalent to that he was occupying on some rent on his failure to do so vacate the shop within one years. In appeal the order was set aside as prescribed authority exceeded his jurisdiction in creating tenancy while deciding application for release. On merit the appellate authority decided against petitioner on bonafide requirement because in the application the shop was claims for Om Prakash and Shital Prasad whereas in his statement on oath it was claimed for Om Prakash and Arvind Kumar. For Shital Prashad only this much was said that he was carrying on his business of general merchandise on payment. From this appellate authority inferred that need of Shital Prasad was not pressed. And as regards Arvind Kumar it having not been pleaded the petitioner was not entitled to put forward it in statement on oath. For Shital Prashad only this much was said that he was carrying on his business of general merchandise on payment. From this appellate authority inferred that need of Shital Prasad was not pressed. And as regards Arvind Kumar it having not been pleaded the petitioner was not entitled to put forward it in statement on oath. Having eliminated Shital Prasad and Arvind Kumar he took up the case of Om Prakash and found it not genuine for two reasons one failure of petitioner to disclose nature of business which he intended to carry on if shop was vacated and that he was running a printing press. For the latter there was no evidence or material on record but because initially petitioner had claimed that he was doing nothing and on opposite party's plea that he was running printing press petitioner stated that it had been winded up. According to him this could not be accepted because petitioner was not stating truth whereas opposite party had not conceded anything. But more than failure to establish bonafide requirement the appellate authority was influenced by conduct of petitioner. According to him petitioner had everred in his application that his eldest son had shifted to Gorakhpur due to Paucity of accommodation when in his objection to recovery to loan filed in 1967 was stated by him before Industries Officer that his son had separated after partition. Not only this, petitioner according to appellate authority did not disclose that his son Om Prakash was running printing press. And even when he was concerned he could only say that it had been winded up. Further, Om Prakhash did not appears to clear this. Apart from these falsehoods and concealments he drew adverse inference against petitioner because in the application, age of Om Prakash and Shital Prasad was disclosed at 24 and 22 whereases in cross-examination. Petitioner admitted it to be 40 and 33. This according to appellate authority was purposive as sons age 40 and 30 could not have remained unsettled. To add to all these circumstances was sale by petitioner of one of the shops few years prior to filing of application for release. The appellate authority not find any merit in the claim of petitioner that need of petitioner could not be judged by sale made earlier. To add to all these circumstances was sale by petitioner of one of the shops few years prior to filing of application for release. The appellate authority not find any merit in the claim of petitioner that need of petitioner could not be judged by sale made earlier. He held that if petitioner would have needed the shop for his sons and grandsons then he could not have sold the shop a few years ago. 3. In counter-affidavit averments have been made in support of the order passed by appellate authority. Paragraph 7 discloses that godown and shops at Eawah Road stated to belong to opposite party was not correct as it was not only jointly family property but its shops were in occupation of tenant. Paragraph 9 and its various paragraph gives detail about Ram Prasad, his separation. Arvind Kumar's statement, pretense about necessity for Om Prakash and Shital Prasad. Paragraph 12 and its sub-paragraphs attempt to give out the location of shops and the effort of sale of one of shops few years ago, Shital Prasad was carrying on general merchandise shop in regular shop etc. Number of documents, Commissioners report etc have been also been filed along with counter-affidavit. 4. It cannot be disputed that opposite party is entitled to support order of the authority on grounds or even evidence which is not mentioned in the order. At the same time it is beyond doubt that initial duty of adjudicating questions of fact is on the authority entrusted with this responsibility under the statue. And most of these documents have not been referred at all. But that alone may not be sufficient and it has to be examined if the two findings recorded by appellate authority are based on relevant consideration and can be accepted as finding of fact binding on this court in writ jurisdiction. 5. Before examining the finding on merits namely bonafide need of petitioner it may be examined it finding of petitioner's coming with unclean hands it well founded as if this be true then even the finding bonafide requirement of petitioner shall not be of any assistance as concealment or fraud disentitles a person from approaching a court of law. It was found ab appellate authority that petition indulged in falsehood when he stated that his son Ram Prasad had to migrate to Gorakhpur due to paucity of accommodation. It was found ab appellate authority that petition indulged in falsehood when he stated that his son Ram Prasad had to migrate to Gorakhpur due to paucity of accommodation. It is not disputed that Ram Prasad did not migrate to Gorakhpur. Further release has not been sought for him. In the objection to recovery of loan against Ram Prasad petitioner no doubt stated he had separated and was doing his dependent business but as release was not sought for him the application of petitioner could not be rejected on this ground. Separation from business or even taking share from ancestral property mean that petitioner was uttering falsehood when he stated that due to paucity of accommodation Ram Prasad shifted to his father-in-laws place. Then necessity of Ram Prasad was not put forth as a ground for release. Petitioner was not going to gain anything or even strengthen his case by these averments. To reject his application therefore and hold guilty of unclean hands was not justified. Nor was the appellate authority justified in recording the finding that claim of petitioner that Om Prakash has winded up his business was false pretext for seeking ejectment. Failure of petitioner to disclose the date of closing of printing press or omission to examined him may give rise to inference against petitioner but it could not be held to be false pretext so as to shut the doors of court for petitioner. The finding that petitioner concealed this fact does not appear to be correct. If the business of printing press had been wounded up before filing of application for release it was not necessary to be mentioned. But once it was stated by other side petitioner did not deny it. He claimed is winding up. Although there appears to have been no material on record to prove or disprove it except oath against oath yet assuming that appellate authority could decide one way or the other his finding could not result in inference of concealment or falsity. Appellate Authority was further not justified in strengthening this conclusion by divergence in age disclosed of two sons in the application from the stated on oath. In fact the inference drawn by him that the sons must have been settled by the time they became 40 and 30 based on no evidence. Normality it may be so. Appellate Authority was further not justified in strengthening this conclusion by divergence in age disclosed of two sons in the application from the stated on oath. In fact the inference drawn by him that the sons must have been settled by the time they became 40 and 30 based on no evidence. Normality it may be so. But it could not be assumed that disclosure of lesser age in application was purposive. In no case this could be taken as strengthening the impression gathered by appellate authority that petitioner had not came with clean hands. 6. Even the factum of sale of another shop for years back could not reflect adversely against petitioner. Material points of time for deciding bonafide requirement is the time when application is made. Its genuineness cannot be determine by what happened few years back. A landlord having a more than one shop cannot be expected to keep all his shops for all the time else an inference may be drawn against him. A shop may not be suitable or the landlord may be in need of money and he may sell one of the shop. Law does not debar him from doing so. It is another thing that while judging bonafide the sale immediately before making the application or without any reason etc may disentitle a landlord. But that depends on facts of each case. In this case the appellate authority having found that it was sold few years before moving the application by itself was not sufficient not it could give rise to adverse inference against petitioner so as to warrant dismissal of application under Section 21(1)(a) specially when according to paragraph 18 of the counter-affidavit was sold on 4.11.1969 that is nearly more than 8 years prior to moving of the application. The appellate authority there was not justified in rejecting petitioners application on finding that petitioner had not come with clean hands or the his need could not be said to be bonafide because he sold the shop few years back. 7. Coming to the merits, the application has been rejected because the purpose for which shop was needed was not disclosed in the application or in evidence. But mentioning of specific business which landlord intends to carry on is neither the requirement of Section 21 nor the rules framed thereunder. 7. Coming to the merits, the application has been rejected because the purpose for which shop was needed was not disclosed in the application or in evidence. But mentioning of specific business which landlord intends to carry on is neither the requirement of Section 21 nor the rules framed thereunder. What is necessary is the requirement of building for trade profession or calling. And in the application it is clearly mentioned that shop was needed for carrying on business by his son and grandson. Whether petitioner has been able to establish it or not is another thing but the application could not be rejected for not disclosing the specific business which petitioner or his sons intended to carry on in shop in dispute. The appellate authority was labouring under misapprehension that details of business has also to be disclosed. 8. The order is also bad because appellate authority in recording the finding that need of Ravindra Kumar grandson was not alleged in the application either misread it or ignored it. In paragraph 8 it is clearly stated that Vinod and Arvind sons of his eldest son are major and are desirous of doing business but there is no shop for them. In paragraph 9 it is averred that it was moral responsibility of petitioner to settle them. Lot of argument was raised whether Ravindra Kumar could be considered to be member of petitioners family but it is not necessary to decide it as it can be raised before appellate authority when the appeal is taken for decision afresh. 9. As regard Shital Prasad and Om Prakash the appellate authority committed error in observing that as petitioner only stated that Shital Prasad was carrying on business of general merchandise on payment he was not required to consider his need for shop in dispute. Petitioner having pleaded specifically that shop was needed for Shital Prasad and he having stated in examination that he was doing his business on pavement the appellate authority was required to consider his need. Statement was made in furtherance of what was stated in application. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for opposite party on Sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph of counter-affidavit to show that Shital Prasad was doing his business in a shop and not on footpath. May be but this was to be examined by appellate authority. Statement was made in furtherance of what was stated in application. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for opposite party on Sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph of counter-affidavit to show that Shital Prasad was doing his business in a shop and not on footpath. May be but this was to be examined by appellate authority. It was open to him conclude from material on record that the shop was not required for Shital Prasad. But in not deciding it as petitioner did not stated that it was needed for him in the circumstances was erroneous. Even the finding in respect of Om Prakash is not well founded. The finding that he was running printing press is not based on evidence on record. But on inference from two facts his non-appearance as a witness and impression of appellate authority that petitioner was generally not telling truth. In counter-affidavit Paragraph 16(1)(a) it is stated that Om Prakash carried on his printing press in the back portion of the building but after filing of written statement he shifted his press to Gorakhpur. Without commenting on it suffice it to say that all this was to be examined by appellate authority. In view of evidence on those aspects detailed in counter-affidavit the appeal had to be decided on evidence and material on record and not on assumptions and inference. 10. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order pressed by appellate authority is quashed. He shall decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Any observation made above shall not be treated as binding. Parties shall bear their own costs.