JUDGMENT : - Sudhir Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 8-4-1997, allowing the appeal and releasing the disputed shop in favour of the landlord, Respondent No. 2. 2. THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop bearing No. 2/603/60, forming part of commercial-cum-residential complex situate on Station Road, Saharanpur. This complex is known as 'vikram Bhawan'. Respondent No. 2 is its owner and landlord. He filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U.P., Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) for release of the shop in question. He is carrying on the business of sale of agricultural implements. He has two sons vikram Kapoor and Gautam Kapoor. THE elder son Vikram Kapoor is graduate but unemployed. He is staying with him in the shop where the landlord is carrying on the business. His second son Gautam Kapoor is assisting his father. It was stated that Vikram Kapoor wants to carry on independent business in a separate shop. THE petitioner contested the application. It was stated by him that in fact, Vikram Kapoor the son of the landlord was already carrying on business with his father and does not require the shop in question. THE landlord conducts his business which is run in the name and style of "janak Engineering" and "ramson Engineering". THE landlord is proprietor of both these business. THE Prescribed Authority rejected the application on 6-2-1992. Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal against the said order. Respondent No. 1' has allowed the appeal on 8-4-1997 by the impugned order on the finding that the need of landlord, Respondent No. 2, to set up his son Vikram Kapoor independently in a separate shop is bona fide and genuine. I have heard Sri K. K. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that Respondent No. 2 had filed application with the allegation that he was unemployed but later on his son Vikram Kapoor filed affidavit indicating that he is carrying on business of sale of agricultural implements in the name of firm VG. Brothers and on such admission, the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 was liable to be rejected. 3. Brothers and on such admission, the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 was liable to be rejected. 3. RESPONDENT No. 2 had stated in his application that his son Vikram Kapoor was unemployed but he was sitting with him in his shop. Later on an affidavit was filed by the landlord himself. Vikram Kapoor, son of RESPONDENT No. 2 also filed an affidavit dated 6-2-1998 explaining the position in regard to his business. It was stated by him that he is carrying on the business in the name of VG. Brothers but it is in the corner of shop of his father. He has no independent shop to carry on the business. This fact was himself admitted by the son of RESPONDENT No. 2 that he was carrying on the business but there was no shop available to him. The application was filed in the year 1991. His son Vikram Kapoor was married and required the amount for his independent living and to support his family. During the pendency of the case he started a business in a portion of the shop in which his father was carrying on such business. This fact does not show that there was no justification for carrying on such business. He himself admitted this fact and that amounts to a pleadings. The RESPONDENT failed to show that the business which is being carried on by Vikram Kapoor, son of RESPONDENT No. 2, is situate in any independent shop. It was only in a portion of the shop of his father. The landlord can seek release of the accommodation if he has to establish his son independently in a business in, a different shop. 4. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner then urged that Respondent No. 2 is carrying on business on the ground floor, the area of which is alleged to be 25' x 33' which comes to about 91 square yards. The total area of the ground floor is 907 square yards. An area of 489 sq. yds. is with the Bank of Baroda leaving the space of 428 square yards with the landlord-Respondent No. 2. In paragraph 3 of the petition the petitioner has stated that the commercial complex measures 100 square yards wherein as many as 21 shops have been raised in the basement. An area of 489 sq. yds. is with the Bank of Baroda leaving the space of 428 square yards with the landlord-Respondent No. 2. In paragraph 3 of the petition the petitioner has stated that the commercial complex measures 100 square yards wherein as many as 21 shops have been raised in the basement. Respondent No. 2 in paragraph 6 of his counter affidavit has explained the position that he is carrying on business in the name of M/s. Janak Engineering and Ramson Engineering. Both these businesses are situated only in one shop and that too is only 91 square yards. He has, in fact, other shop where he can provide the accommodation to his son. The business of M/s. V. G. Brothers which is being run by his son Vikram Kapoor in partnership has no other shop. Respondent No. 1 has found that the ground floor portion in which the Respondent No. 2 is carrying on business is in an area of 25' x 33'. It is a matter of assessment of the evidence in regard to the space required for business and as to how much portion the landlord can provide to his sons separately. The appellate authority has found that his son requires separate accommodation for carrying on his independent business. I do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by Respondent No. 1. It is next contended that during the pendency of the application for release the landlord had got vacated a shop but later on it was let out to M/s. Choudhary and Sons. The appellate authority has also considered this aspect. It was found that the area of the shop occupied by M/s. Choudhary and Sons is 5" x 3'. He was carrying on business of sate of ball bearing which was hardly sufficient space for carrying on business of agricultural implements. 5. THE next submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that one Modern School was situated in the said premises and such building having been vacated the Same was available to the landlord. This fact was denied by the landlord. He had filed photographs and in absence of and material evidence to prove that the said building was vacated by the Modern School, there was hardly any justification for making local inspection. This fact was denied by the landlord. He had filed photographs and in absence of and material evidence to prove that the said building was vacated by the Modern School, there was hardly any justification for making local inspection. Secondly, the version of the Respondent is that the application was never pressed by the petitioner and the application remained pending. 6. THE last submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he is in possession of a shop of an area measuring 20' x 10' and only a part of it should have been released. THE petitioner never raised this plea before the prescribed authority on appellate Authority. Even in this petition the petitioner has not raised this point. It depends upon the various facts. THE son of respondent No. 2 wants to carry on business and the sale of agricultural implements. If the petitioner had raised this plea, respondents could have considered as to the space required for carrying on the business by the son of the landlord. It may further be noted that the petitioner was offered a godown by the landlord but he refused to accept the said godown. Considering the facts and circumstances 0f the case I do not find it to be a fit case for Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.