Judgment : R. K. Gulati, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20th April, 1988 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 237, 1987. The petitioner is admittedly the landlord/owner of a accommodation which has been described as a godown No. 225-C, Ganjbazar, Sadar, Meerut Cant., Meerut, Initially a partnership firm M/s. Shanker Das Durga Prasad Adhati and its partners were the tenants of the accommodation aforesaid but subsequently Kailash Chandra, the 1st respondent became the sole tenant and on this point there is no dispute between the parties. During the pendency of this writ petition Kailash Chandra died and his heirs were allowed to be substituted by an order dated 28th November, 1994 passed by this Court. 2. THE facts are that the petitioner landlord had sought release of the accommodation aforesaid (here in after referred to as "the disputed accommodation") under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act), on the ground that the same was required for the bona fide need of the petitioner for setting up his own business in Ghee and oil. THE application for release was granted by the Prescribed Authority on the findings that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and genuine inasmuch as the petitioner required the disputed accommodation for the purpose of setting up of his own business. Another finding of the Prescribed Authority was that the comparative hardship of the petitioner would be greater if the release application was to be rejected as compared to the hardship of the respondent-tenant if the application for release was granted. Against the order 01 the Prescribed Authority the tenant-respondent preferred an appeal as provided under Section 22 of the Act. The appellate court took a different view of the matter and did not concur with the findings of the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlord for release of the accommodation in question was either bonafide or genuine. Accordingly, the findings of the Prescribed Authority on this score were set aside. In view of this finding the appellate court did not consider it necessary to record any finding on the question about the comparative hardship of the parties. Accordingly, the findings of the Prescribed Authority on this score were set aside. In view of this finding the appellate court did not consider it necessary to record any finding on the question about the comparative hardship of the parties. The petitioner has challenged through this writ petition the view which has found favour with the appellate court. The petition is ripe for hearing. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be decided finally at the admission stage itself. The learned Counsel for the parties have accordingly been heard. 3. THE main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that the findings of the appellate court about the bona fide need of the petitioner are based on conjectures or surmises. It was argued that the view taken by the appellate court is not supported by any material that exists on record. THE findings recorded by the appellate court are arbitrary and perverse, which are not liable to be sustained. 4. BEFORE proceeding further it may be noticed that Section 21 of the Act inter alia provides for contingencies in which a landlord can approach the Prescribed Authority for eviction of a sitting tenant and may seek the release of the accommodation under his tenancy. It says, if building or a portion thereof is bona fide required in its existing form or after demolition and construction by the landlord for himself or any member of his family etc., either for residential purpose or for the purpose of any profession trade or calling, the landlord may move an application before the Prescribed Authority for eviction of the tenant and for release of the accommodation in his favour. The said provision further directs that if the Assessing Authority is satisfied about the bona fide need of the applicant and it is found that the comparative hardship of the applicant-landlord would be greater than that of the tenant in the event the application is refused, the Prescribed Authority may order the eviction of the tenant from the building under his tenancy or any specified part thereof. The entitlement of the landlord to the order of release is dependent on the fulfilment of the statutory conditions to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority. The entitlement of the landlord to the order of release is dependent on the fulfilment of the statutory conditions to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority. On such satisfaction the Prescribed Authority is free to direct the release of tenanted accommodation after taking into account the pros and cons in judicial manner of the case set- up by the contesting parties. If the claim of the landlord is not dishonest and he has no oblique motive or is not for any designed purpose of eviction the tenant his need should be held to be bona fide. The scheme of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act is to protect the tenants from frivolous eviction from the accommodation in their tenancy and occupation. The question whether the need is bona fide depends on motivation that protects a person. The question about bona fide need is required to be decided objectively by the court or authority and not on the subjective satisfaction of the needy landlord or that of the tenant. In the instant case, the eviction of the tenant-respondent was sought by the petitioner on the allegations inter alia that he was not engaged in any work, vocation or occupation for gains or in any business ever since there was a partition amongst the brothers and he severed his rights for the business carried on by him earlier alongwith his brothers. Further, the only son of the petitioner was engaged in his separate business in a tenanted shop No. 226-A, Ganjbazar, Meerut Cant., Meerut. The family of his son consisted of four sons and a daughter to whom he had to support and he was not able to contribute anything towards the needs of the petitioner. The relationship with his son were strained and he does not provide to the petitioner even bare necessities of life. 5. THE application for release was, however, contested by the respondent-tenant on the ground amongst other that the petitioner was aged about 60 years and was incapable of doing any independent business, he was looking after the business of his son and thus the need of the petitioner was neither bona fide nor genuine. 5. THE application for release was, however, contested by the respondent-tenant on the ground amongst other that the petitioner was aged about 60 years and was incapable of doing any independent business, he was looking after the business of his son and thus the need of the petitioner was neither bona fide nor genuine. It was also the case of the respondent that he possessed no alternative accommodation, thus his need for the godown in dispute was greater than that of the petitioner- landlord, in order to carry on his business in Adhat (commission) effectively. It may be mentioned that the respondent-tenant was doing his business from a shop elsewhere and the disputed accommodation was retained for a godown only. 6. THE petitioner as well as the respondent-tenant both filed their affidavits before the prescribed authority and also adduced other documentary evidence in support of their respective case. In the affidavit dated 5th April, 1987 and also in the written statement filed by the tenant-respondent it was asserted that he had a lucrative wholesale business in Ghee and Oil with disclosed sales around Rs. 6 to 7 (six to seven) Lacs per month. He was also an authorised agent of vegetable oil manufactured by 'modi Mills' besides he was also the authorised wholesale dealer in sugar. In paragraphs 7 to 10 of the writ petition, inter alia, it is asserted that the respondent-tenant has enough alternative accommodation available to him, the business carried on by him belongs to his joint family and all his sons are engaged in that business. House No. 329 owned by his wife has three shops, which the respondent-tenant can use for the purpose of godown and are 10' x 12' in size fitted with iron shutters. The said shops are located within a radius of 350 yards from the shop the respondent-tenant was carrying on his business. Those shops are lying vacant and have enough space. There is also an approach road, which enables trucks and other vehicles to reach those shops conveniently. The prescribed authority on consideration of the case set-up by the parties and the evidence brought on record held that the need of the petitioner-landlord was bona fide and genuine. Those shops are lying vacant and have enough space. There is also an approach road, which enables trucks and other vehicles to reach those shops conveniently. The prescribed authority on consideration of the case set-up by the parties and the evidence brought on record held that the need of the petitioner-landlord was bona fide and genuine. It was held that the petitioner was sitting ideal and was not occupied with any business, profession or trade, and, therefore, the need for the shop in dispute for the purposes of carrying on business was bona fide. The prescribed authority found that there was a partition between the petitioner-landlord and his brothers and thereafter he had severed his relations with the business which he earlier carried on alongwith his brothers. It was also held that the petitioner could not be compelled to impose himself on his son with whom relations where strained and left at the mercy of his son. It was also held that the petitioner enjoyed good health and was physically capable of setting up the proposed business, for which the petitioner- landlord had sufficient means. On the question of comparative hardship, the finding was that the respondent-tenant could easily shift to the godowns in shop Nos. 329 and 329-A owned by his wife which were vacant and were suitable for the purposes of godown and were easily approachable from shop from which the respondent- tenant carried on his business. 7. ON the aforesaid findings, as already stated, the prescribed authority granted the release application and directed the respondent-tenant to vacate the accommodation in dispute. The appellate court did not dispute the factum of partition between the petitioner and his brothers, it, however, felt that as the petitioner had not given any reason for separating himself from the business which he earlier carried on alongwith his brothers, the bona fide and genuineness of the claim of the petitioner that he had severed his relations with the earlier business, could not be accepted. Another finding recorded by the appellate court was that age of 60 years although was not a legal bar for setting up the new business, but the common experience was that it is done rarely for compelling circumstances, which had not been proved in the instant case. Another finding recorded by the appellate court was that age of 60 years although was not a legal bar for setting up the new business, but the common experience was that it is done rarely for compelling circumstances, which had not been proved in the instant case. It was also held that it could not be shown as to how the son developed strained relations with the petitioner, and, therefore, the case of the petitioner on this score in absence of corroborative evidence could not be accepted, yet another finding recorded was that the tenant- respondent had doubted the means of the petitioner to set-up a new business, which was denied by the petitioner saying that he had sufficient goodwill in the market, but it was not shown as to how the goodwill was acquired without rendering any assistance in the business carried on by his son. In the ultimate analysis the appellate court held that the material on record was not sufficient to convince the mind the genuine requirement of the petitioner for the accommodation in dispute and findings to the contrary of the prescribed authority were erroneous. 8. NOW as already observed, the partition between the petitioner and his brother was not in dispute. In fact, it is on partition amongst the brothers that the godown in dispute fell to the share of the petitioner. The separation of the petitioner from his brothers on account of the partition itself was sufficient to establish that the petitioner had severed his relations with the earlier business. The insistence of the court below for additional reason was neither justified nor is understandable. It is settled under law that the result of the partition is that there is a separation amongst the members who were party to the partition. The finding that the petitioner had not separated from earlier business, therefore, cannot be justified. Likewise, the view expressed by the court below that the petitioner would not venture for new business at the age of 60-70 years, cannot" be sustained. The specific case of the petitioner was that he had no gainful occupation or business to involve himself since after the separation with his brothers. There is nothing to indicate that his son admitted the petitioner to his business. The specific case of the petitioner was that he had no gainful occupation or business to involve himself since after the separation with his brothers. There is nothing to indicate that his son admitted the petitioner to his business. In these circumstances, if the petitioner thought of setting up his own business, nothing wrong can be found with it, which perhaps under the circumstances was necessary in order to survive and in order to earn for his livelihood. The finding of the appellate court that it had not been shown as to how the petitioner and his son had developed strained relations, is equally fallacious. Whether or not the relations between the needy landlord and his son were strained, was of not much significance. Even if the relations between the petitioner and his sons were cordial, that is no ground that the son would necessarily associate the petitioner with the business or for that matter the father would always like to join his son. In commercial transactions there are many other factors which play their role, illustratively whether the business could suitably and profitably be run in joint venture. The petitioner could not be forced to join his son and to live on his mercy. The need of the petitioner landlord could not have been brushed aside or sacrificed only for the reason that his son was already carrying on business, and the relations between two were cordial. The bona fide need of the petitioner to set-up his own business could not have been doubted for reasons which have been found favour; with the appellate court. 9. IT is true that the remedy under Article 226 to seek judicial review in such matters is not by way of appeal, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Parameters of judicial review are well settled by now as a result of the pronouncement by different Courts, both by Supreme Court and the High Courts. In a given case where the Court is concerned with the findings of fact in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it examines only the reasonable ness of the finding. In a given case where the Court is concerned with the findings of fact in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it examines only the reasonable ness of the finding. If the finding is found to be rational and reasonable based on evidence in the sense that relevant material has been taken into account and no irrelevant material has influenced the decision, and the decision is one which any reasonably minded person, acts on such evidence, would come to, then judicial review is exhaustive, even the finding may not necessarily be of the court would have come to as a trier of fact. The decision under review will be set aside if it is manifestly erroneous and arbitrary or that finding of fact by the court below was unjustified and against weight of evidence. 10. IN the instant case, as already observed, the findings of the appellate court can neither be sustained on facts or in law. The finding of the appellate court's on the question of bona fide need of the petitioner and its genuineness is accordingly set aside and that of the prescribed authority is resorted. The appellate court has not recorded any finding on the comparative need of the parties as it has already been observed hereinabove. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 20th April, 1988 of the appellate court is set aside, and the case is remanded to the appellate court with the direction to decide the appeal afresh after recording its findings on the question of comparative hardship of the contesting parties in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 11. IN the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.