Judgment By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29-11-2003 passed in rent control appeal No. 10 of 1998, by learned Additional District Judge / 2nd Fast Track Court, Haridwar, whereby the said appeal has been allowed and application for release of the accommodation In question of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in this petition, are that a release application was moved by late Ram Lal (father of the petitioner) for release of shop in question In occupation of the respondent No.2, Raj Kumar. In the release application, it was alleged that Pradeep Kumar (present petitioner No. 1/2) was running a retail shop of cement, in a 10 ft. x 10 ft. accommodation. Since cement kept there cause dusting all the time, as such it is not possible for him to run said business in one room. Therefore, Pradeep Kumar needs the adjoining shop i.e. shop occupied in. question, so that he can sit with his customers in the shop and the shop of 10 ft. x 10 ft. be used for keeping the cement. Respondent No. 2 was running a cycle repairing shop in the shop in question. According to the petitioner, he can shift his business anywhere easily and also suggested in the release application that there are many shops available in the nearby shopping complex in the same locality. Learned Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties, discussed the evidence adduced by them and found that the need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide. It also gave the finding that the comparative hardship of the landlord is greater than that of the respondent No. 2 (tenant). Accordingly, the release application was allowed vide order dated 16-01-1998 passed In P.A. case No. 16 of 1994. Aggrieved by said judgement and order, respondent no. 2 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Haridwar, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. to of 1998. The said appeal appears to have been transferred to the court of Addl. District Judge / 2nd Fast Track Court, Haridwar. After hearing the parties, said court allowed the appeal and rejected the application of the landlord for release of the shop in question. The said appeal appears to have been transferred to the court of Addl. District Judge / 2nd Fast Track Court, Haridwar. After hearing the parties, said court allowed the appeal and rejected the application of the landlord for release of the shop in question. Hence, this writ petition challenging said order of the appellate authority on the ground that the learned appellate authority has erred in :aw In holding that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and also on the ground that the comparative hardship of the tenant was wrongly assessed by said court. 3. Notices were Issued to the respondents by this Court. Initially, the respondent No. 2 was represented by Sri B.S. Verma (now elevated to the Bench) where after, again fresh notices were sent to the respondent No.2, which was again served on him but no one has turned up on his behalf at the time of final hearing. 4. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available before this Court. 5. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 is occupying the shop In question as a tenant. It is also not disputed that originally Sri Ram Lal was the landlord of the shop 'In question and after his death his heirs (the petitioners) are the landlords. Perusal of the record shows that this is not disputed that in the adjoining shop to the shop in question, late Ram Lal's son Pradeep Kumar (petitioner no. 1/2) is running a cement Shop. It is matter of common knowledge that in a shop of cement, if the dealer sits in the same room for whole day, he would been constant touch of dust particles. As such, the need of the landlord of the adjoining shop for his sitting and for customers was rightly held by the learned Prescribed Authority to be genuine and bona fide. Considering the vacant shops available in the nearby newly constructed shopping complex, in which the tenant could have easily shifted, as to the comparative hardship, learned Prescribed Authority rightly found that the hardship to the landlord was more as against the tenant. Perusal of the order of the respondent No.1, by which the appeal is allowed, shows that on two grounds the appeal has been allowed. Perusal of the order of the respondent No.1, by which the appeal is allowed, shows that on two grounds the appeal has been allowed. Firstly, after the death of Sri Ram Lal during the pendency of the release application, petitioner is in possession of a new shop, as such the need for the shop in question doesn't remain genuine and bona fide. Secondly, that there is a god own available with the landlord, which can be used by Pradeep Kumar for keeping the cement bags. As such, comparative hardship of the tenant is more than that of the respondent No.2. In its writ Jurisdiction, this Court cannot enter into the correctness of factual dispute, but certainly can see, if learned appellate court has erred In law in holding that need was not bona fide and comparative hardship was more in favour of the tenant. 6. From the evidence on record, it appears that learned appellate court ignored the fact that after death of Ram Lal (the original landlord), his married daughter, who was compelled to shift from Punjab due to the riots there, is running the shop for her father with the assistance of her husband. learned lower court has rejected this point only on the ground that liability of maintenance of married daughter was with the in-laws. It is not a question of who was liable to maintain, but the relevant question was, whether said shop was available for Pradeep Kumar, son of the landlord, for keeping the cement bags. To that extent the appellate court has erred in law by not accepting the need of the landlord as bona fide. Similarly, the another finding as to the comparative hardship is also against the record and can be said to be perverse, for the reason that the appellate court has suggested store for keeping the cement in a cowshed. Report of the Commissioner before the court below was that the accommodation which was being suggested by the tenant, where the petitioner could have kept the cement, was In fact, a cowshed in a narrow lane where the cement could not have been transported In any vehicle. That being so, since this Court finds that learned appellate court has given perverse finding and erred in law in reversing the order of the prescribed Authority passed in P.A. Case No. 16 of 1994, the writ petition deserved to be allowed. That being so, since this Court finds that learned appellate court has given perverse finding and erred in law in reversing the order of the prescribed Authority passed in P.A. Case No. 16 of 1994, the writ petition deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgement and order dated 29-11-2003 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 1998 is quashed. However, in the interest of justice, the respondent No.2 is allowed one month's time to vacate the shop in question. No order as to costs.