Judgment By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-05-1999 passed by the prescribed authority (whereby the application of landlord for release of shop is allowed) and order dated 29-01-2004, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the Rent Control Appeal No. 06 of 1999. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that, in 1995, respondent NO.3 (landlord) filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for release of his shop which is in the tenancy of the petitioner. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is the copy of said application which shows that release of the shop has been sought on the ground that petitioner's eldest son who has learnt diamond cutting work, is an unemployed youth who has to do that business. Apart from this another son who knows dyeing and printing work of 'Pichchoras' (a cloth used by hill women on auspicious occasions), and he too is unable to do his business for want of shop. It is further alleged in the release application that the tenant (petitioner) is doing business of repairing of television sets in the shop in question which he can shift elsewhere as in Belwal Market, a nearby place, vacant shops are available for such purpose. The petitioner (tenant) contested the application and filed his written statement in which it is admitted that he is tenant of respondent No.3 in the shop in question on rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month since 1988, but rest of the contents of application, as stated, are denied. In additional pleas it is stated that one son of the landlord is doing his work behind degree college. It is further stated in the written statement that work of dyeing and printing can be done at home. Lastly, it is said that Sri Prashant Verma, son of respondent No.3 is already earning well by doing diamond cutting work. Learned prescribed authority after accepting evidence, and hearing the parties found the need of landlord to be genuine and bona fide and also greater hardship in his favour, and allowed the application for release of the shop. Lastly, it is said that Sri Prashant Verma, son of respondent No.3 is already earning well by doing diamond cutting work. Learned prescribed authority after accepting evidence, and hearing the parties found the need of landlord to be genuine and bona fide and also greater hardship in his favour, and allowed the application for release of the shop. Aggrieved by said order the tenant (present petitioner) preferred appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After hearing the parties, the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Haldwani on 29-01-2004. Hence, this writ petition on the ground that both the authorities below have erred in law in holding the need of the landlord to be genuine and bona fide and on the point as to comparative hardship. It is further alleged in the writ petition that during the pendency of appeal, the respondent No.3 (landlord) has got constructed two new shops in the ground floor and one shop in the first floor as such his need is no more bona fide nor is there any hardship in his favour. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 has erred in law by ignoring said fact, at the time of disposal of appeal. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, in which it has been stated that, before the landlord moved the application for release in 1995, the petitioner himself instituted a civil suit No. 87 of 1995 against the landlord for injunction that he be not evicted except in accordance with law and said suit of the petitioner was decreed on 31-05-1999. Not only this, the petitioner himself invoked provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as a tenant for depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of said Act, in respect of shop in question. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner, during pendency of appeal before respondent No.1, moved an application to amend the ground in memo of appeal to raise a plea that the petitioner is not a tenant but unauthorized occupant. The said application was rejected by the appellate court, against which petitioner filed writ petition No. 232 (MIS) of 2002 but to no avail. The said application was rejected by the appellate court, against which petitioner filed writ petition No. 232 (MIS) of 2002 but to no avail. Again, the petitioner sought before appellate court to amend the written statement regarding construction of new shop by the landlord during the pendency of appeal which was also rejected and once again petitioner filed writ petition No. 560 (MIS) of 2003, which was also dismissed with the observation that affidavits filed as to the said fact can be read in evidence. Defending the Impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 and 2, it has been stated in the counter affidavit, that new room constructed in the first floor is residential one and room constructed in ground floor is, in fact, basement used for keeping household goods and other raw material used in dyeing business. 4. I heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit alongwith annexures thereto. 5. On behalf of the petitioner, the first argument advanced is that the appellate court in its impugned Judgement dated 29-02-2004 only mentioned what has been found by the learned prescribed authority and it has not discussed what are reasons for which it dismisses the appeal on the points raised by the appellant (tenant). I have gone through the said judgement passed by respondent No.1. Learned appellate court has, in fact, concurred with the findings of the prescribed authority on the points of bona fide need of landlord and comparative hardship as against the tenant. As to the new constructions, the appellate court has observed that being subsequent events to the moving of application for release of the shop, the same need not required to be looked into. Had It been a case where the appellate court disagrees with the findings of the trial court, it Is expected from the court, to give more detailed reasons for reversing the findings. But when the appellate court agrees with the findings with that of trial court, of course it is required to give its own reasons for coming to the same conclusions but the reasons are not necessarily to be lengthy. In the present case, appellate court has given sufficient reasons for agreeing with the prescribed authority. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the principle of law given in Kedar Hath Agarwal and another Vs. In the present case, appellate court has given sufficient reasons for agreeing with the prescribed authority. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the principle of law given in Kedar Hath Agarwal and another Vs. Dhanaraji Devi and another reported in 2004 (2) Allahabad Rent cases 764; M/s Variety Emporium Vs. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Haina reported in 1985 Supreme Court &. Full Bench cases 52 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram reported in A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 700 and submitted that subsequent events' (eg. Construction during pendency of proceedings) should be looked into and appellate court has erred in law in not doing so. I have gone through said case laws. It has, been held in the aforementioned cases that general rule is that the facts should be seen as it existed on the date of institution of a case but in appropriate cases subsequent events cannot be Ignored. Similar is the view contained in Rabindra Kumar Ghoshel Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1408 and Purushottam Das Vs. The VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and others reported in A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 1520, that subsequent events can be seen to do justice between the parties. In the light of these judgements, I considered the facts alleged by the petitioner regarding new construction raised by the landlord during pendency of appeal before respondent No.1. and found that even that does not help the petitioner as the respondent No.3 ,has categorically stated that new room constructed in the first floor is a residential one. and new room in the ground floor is a basement used for keeping household goods and raw material used in dyeing business. The need of the landlord is that of shop for his two sons one of whom wants to do diamond cutting business and another to do the dyeing and printing of "Pichchoras" (a cloth used by hill women on auspicious occasions). In the circumstances even if new construction taken into consideration fate of the case remains the same as it neither disturbs bona fide need of the landlord nor greater comparative hardship as he cannot be asked to open shop of his son in residential room or in the basement. 7. In the circumstances even if new construction taken into consideration fate of the case remains the same as it neither disturbs bona fide need of the landlord nor greater comparative hardship as he cannot be asked to open shop of his son in residential room or in the basement. 7. As to the bona fide need of the landlord and greater comparative hardship in his favour, as concluded by learned prescribed authority and also by appellate court, I see neither any perversity in the findings nor any error of law in it. As such, in view of above discussions, the impugned judgement need no interference from this Court. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is allowed one month time from today to vacate the shop in question. No order as to costs.