Judgment A.K. Yog, J. (1) Kailash Chand, tenant of the premises No. 24/3, E.C. Road, Dehradun has filed this petition under Article 226, Constitution of India challenging impugned judgment and order dated 13.3.2000 by means of which Respondent No. 1 appellate Authority appointed under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act) allowed Rent Control Appeal No. 182 of 1998 filed by landlord/respondent No. 2. (2) Brief facts, for the purposes of present case are that Ram Prasad Bhall. landlord/ respondent No. 2 filed release application under Section 2.1 (T) (a) of the Act (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) contending, inter alia, amongst others that he required the aforementioned shop in the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground to settle his son Dinesh Kumar. Parties were given opportunity as contemplated under law and thereafter prescribed authority rejected release application by means of the judgment and order dated 18.9.1998 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition). The prescribed authority did not find favour with the case of the landlord. The prescribed authority held that need of the landlord was not bona fide nor the factor of comparative hardship was in his favour. Feeling aggrieved landlord Ram Prasad Bhatt filed Rent Control Appeal No. 182 of 1998 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition). In para 5 of the appeal it was contended that the need of Dinesh Kumar ought to have been taken into account, who had taken up a job as stop gap arrangement during the pendency of the release application and his need should not have been ignored. (3) During pendency of appeal, certain documents were again filed by the parties. (4) The appellate authority, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, allowed the appeal by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.3.2000. The appellate authority held that the landlord had genuine and bona fide need of the accommodation in question because the case regarding extension of his business should not be disbelieved. Regarding comparative hardship, the appellate authority decided against the tenant primarily taking into account that tenant in his affidavit (Paper No. 12 Ga) had admitted that one of his sons Sanjay was allowed to carry on betel shop in a portion of the accommodation in question. Regarding comparative hardship, the appellate authority decided against the tenant primarily taking into account that tenant in his affidavit (Paper No. 12 Ga) had admitted that one of his sons Sanjay was allowed to carry on betel shop in a portion of the accommodation in question. The appellate authority observed that in view of the said fact, ii was apparent that tenant did not require accommodation for vocation of washing cloths (Dhobi). (5) Feeling aggrieved, tenant has filed this petition. In the instant case, landlord Ram Prasad Bhatt had filed Caveat application through Shri Rajesh Tandon, Advocate, who is also heard at the admission stage. Parties agreed that petition may be decided finally at this stage as the Respondent did not prefer to file counter-affidavit. (6) On behalf of the petitioner the main argument raised before this Court is with respect of the finding recorded by the appellate authority on the question of comparative hardship. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appellate authority was not justified in drawing an inference against the tenant that he did not require accommodation for carrying on business as dhobi merely from the circumstances that his one son was allowed to carry on betel shop on a portion of the disputed shop. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to several affidavits (copies of which have been annexed to the petition), wherein tenant-petitioner disclosed that his son Sanjay was allowed to carry on betel shops business in some portion of the disputed shop but he nowhere stated that he did not require accommodation for the purpose of carrying on his vocation of dhobi. On behalf of the Respondent it has been con tended that the appellate Court has committed no illegality in drawing inference inasmuch as all other sons of the petitioner are comfortably employed, landlord is financially sound and that the foci that Sanjay has been allowed to earn on betel shop in the portion of accommodation in question it can be inferred that the tenant did not intend to carry on vocation of dhobi in future. Without going into the details of the documents existing on record, it will suffice to mention that appellate Court was not justified in drawing the conclusion that by mere allowing his son (Sanjay) to carry on business of betel shop in a portion of the shop in question, the tenant shall be deemed to have admitted that he did not intend to carry on his vocation of dhobi. Approach of the appellate Court, to this extent cannot be approved and the finding recorded by it on the question of comparative hardship' is liable to be set aside. (7) Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for contesting Respondent has referred to the judgment and order dated 21.4.2000 of this Court rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6913 of 1993 Bishambhar Nath vs. The VI Additional District Judge, Bareilly and another, which had relied upon the case of Mst. Bega Begum and other vs. Abdul Ahad Khand and other, (1979) 1 SCC 273 . Since the appellate authority is to decide the issue regarding comparative hardship, let aforesaid judgment he placed by the contesting respondent, if so advised, before the appellate authority during the relevant lime and the appellate authority shall consider relevance of the said judgment while deciding the issue. (8) Appellate Authority has not referred to particulars of affidavit and the counter-affidavit filed by respective parties (which were on record) while considering question of comparative hardship. In the context, it will be relevant to mention that appellate Court ought to have considered the need of the son of the landlord Dinesh Kumar also, who was compelled to lake up temporary a job under compulsion while release application was pending and an affidavit as filed by the tenant (lather of other son Dinesh Kumar) that job was taken up temporarily. Reference may be made to the counter-affidavit of Ram Prasad Bhatt (para 3 pp 66 of the writ paper book). It was not necessary for the son to have filed his affidavit in absence of any specific denial of the said fact. Reference may be made to the counter-affidavit of Ram Prasad Bhatt (para 3 pp 66 of the writ paper book). It was not necessary for the son to have filed his affidavit in absence of any specific denial of the said fact. (9) The appellate authority ought to have taken into account the other averment made by the respective parties particularly regarding the extent of the accommodation available in House No. 134, MDDA Colony, Luxinan Chauk, Dehradun with reference to the averment contained in para 2 of the affidavit of Ram Prasad Bhatt (Annexure 4 to the writ petition pp 50 of the writ paper book). (10) In view of the above finding of the appellate authority on the question of comparative hardship and operative portion of the judgment dated 13.3.2000 are being set aside. Finding on the question of bona fide need, recorded by appellate authority is being affirmed. Petitioner has not challenged the finding on the issue of bona fide, need. Case is being remanded to the appellate authority to decide only the question of comparative hardship afresh in accordance with law. (11) Writ stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The case is being remanded subject to the direction/observation made above. The appellate authority/ respondent No. 1 shall decide the issue afresh within a period of two months if possible. The final result of the appeal under Section 22 of the Act will follow the finding on the issue of comparative hardship. Writ Petitions lands allowed in part. Petition allowed.