JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the tenant under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 14-8-2001 appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. By the impugned order aforesaid, the Additional District Judge, Bareilly allowed the Rent Control appeal No. 21 of 2001 setting aside the order dated 24-1-1994 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Judge in case No. 56 of 1991, Vishnu Kumar v. Surendra and others. 3. The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 24-1-1994 had rejected the application of the landlord under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) which was challenged in the aforesaid appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the landlord moved an application before Prescribed Authority for release of disputed shop situated in Qasba Fareedpur, District Bareilly under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that Jagdish Saran Agarwal the father of the petitioner was the owner of the disputed shop, who had let out the same to Ram Bharosay Lal on rent for Rs. 12/- per month. The application was registered as case No. 56/1991, Vishnu Kumar v. Surendra Dev and others. After the death of the father of the petitioner Sri Jagdish Saran Agarwal on 12-11-1978, his brothers, sisters and mother of the petitioner alongwith him inherited the properties. 5. Ram Bharosay Agarwal has also died and his wife and two sons being opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 inherited the tenancy as legal heirs of the deceased-tenant. After the death of Jagdish Saran Agarwal, the respondent became co-owner and co-landlord alongwith his brothers, sisters and mother. It has also been stated in the petition that after the death of Jagdish Saran Agarwal, the Hindu Undivided Family dissolved. The petitioner, his brothers and their mother mutually made partial partition of some of the properties left by Jagdish Saran Agarwal in which the shop in dispute came in the share of respondent Vishnu Kumar. Thus, he is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. 6. The petitioner, his brothers and their mother mutually made partial partition of some of the properties left by Jagdish Saran Agarwal in which the shop in dispute came in the share of respondent Vishnu Kumar. Thus, he is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. 6. The respondents Vishnu Kumar claims that he is unemployed graduate married in the year 1987; that his father was a cloth merchant and the petitioner was helping him. It is submitted that after the death of his father, Gopal Chandra, his brother is doing the business of cloth merchant. The petitioner has experience of cloth business and he wants to do the business of cloth in the disputed shop after its release in his favour as from that income he can maintain his family. 7. It is also stated that no other shop is available to him whereas the petitioner who was a tenant in the shop of the landlord where he was doing the practice as a ‘Viadhya’ is being vacant as they are not doing any business in it; that one of the sons of the tenant late Ram Bharose is a practicing lawyer at Fareedpur whereas the other son is in Government service and their mother is an old lady about more than 70 years; that the tenants had sub let the disputed shop without permission of the petitioner and are liable to be evicted on these grounds after release of the shop. 8. The petitioners filed their written statement in which it has been said that respondent-landlord is member of Hindu Undivided Family and is doing the joint business with them; that there were 15 shops in a shopping complex which has been let out to State Bank of India. The respondents and his family members are earning thousands of rupees as rent and the need of their father several petitions for release of the shop in his life time which were rejected because his need was not found to be genuine and bona fide. It is submitted that the tenants are depositing the rent of the disputed shop under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 in the Court of Munsif city, Bareilly. 9. It is admitted to the petitioner that one of the brother is in Government Service and the other is a practicing lawyer. It is submitted that the tenants are depositing the rent of the disputed shop under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 in the Court of Munsif city, Bareilly. 9. It is admitted to the petitioner that one of the brother is in Government Service and the other is a practicing lawyer. It is stated that the lawyer son of the Ram Bharose is doing his profession and established his chamber in the half portion of the disputed shop where his widow mother is doing the business of electric goods and electronic equipments through a salesman. 10. It is urged that the respondent and his family members want to get shop in dispute vacated and let out it on higher rent to other persons the shop of Ramesh Chandra Shukla which was vacated by him has been let out to Aejaj Ahmad on enhanced rent. Another shop which was let out to Sunder Lal appears to be locked which can be taken back from him, if the need of the petitioner is at all genuine. It is also stated that about 1,000/- sq. yards land is lying vacant near the State Bank premises where the petitioner can get constructed shop for his need if required. It is denied that the shop was ever sub let to opposite party No. 4 in the suit and hence the release application is liable to be dismissed. In this regard para 4 of Annexure 10 is reproduced as under : “The petitioner filed 25-a, 30-a, 39-a, 44-a and 56-a affidavits in support of his petition. The opposite parties have filed 48-a, 49-a, 51-a affidavits of Smt. Surajmukhi, Shyam Lal, Surender Dev, Nazaqat and Harish Kumar. Besides the affidavits, the petitioner has filed an order of partial partition where the opposite parties have filed copy of the plaint of OS No. 211/89 which is paper No. 36-C and also a copy of lease-deed executed by Gopal Chandra Agarwal”. 11. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence on record, held that the release application was not maintainable as it has been filed by only one of the co-landlords. The Prescribed Authority also did not accept the need of the landlord to be genuine and bona fide and rejected the application. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appeal No. 21 of 1994 was preferred in which the parties reiterated the same facts. 12. The Prescribed Authority also did not accept the need of the landlord to be genuine and bona fide and rejected the application. Aggrieved by the impugned order, appeal No. 21 of 1994 was preferred in which the parties reiterated the same facts. 12. Aggrieved by the order dated 24-1-1994, the petitioners filed Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 1994 on the ground that the Prescribed Authority had illegally held that the application under Section 21(1)(a) was not maintainable as it has not been filed by all the co-landlords of late Jagdish Narain. 13. It is submitted that one of the ground in the appeal filed by the landlord was that after the death of late Jagdish Sharan, the landlord and owner of the properties in dispute, all the heirs became co-landlords. The property has thereafter been mutually partitioned between them, according to which the shop in dispute fell in the share of Vishnu Kumar, hence he alone had filed the application under Section 21(1)(a), which is maintainable at his instance. 14. Respondents opposed the appeal on the ground that the respondents had filed suit No. 211 of 1989 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Bareilly for partition of the properties of late Jagdish Narain. The shop in dispute was also shown as one of the properties at serial No. 4 in schedule appended with the written statement in the aforesaid suit as such the contention of the applicant Vishnu Kumar was incorrect that he alone was the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. 15. The appellate Court by the impugned order dated 14-8-2001 while allowing the release application directing the tenant to handover the possession of the shop in dispute within two months and also directed that the appellant Vishnu Kumar to also pay two years of rent as compensation to opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in lieu of the eviction from the shop in dispute as provided in Section 21 of Act XIII of 1972. 16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order in the appeal, the petitioner-tenant has filed this writ petition. 17. 16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order in the appeal, the petitioner-tenant has filed this writ petition. 17. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the release application filed by Sri Vishnu Kumar was not maintainable as he had filed the aforesaid application concealing material facts to the effect that the landlord had a shopping complex in which two of the shop were vacant and available to him as the family of the petitioner-landlord Joint Hindu Family doing joint business. It is stated that the release application ought to have been filed by all the co-landlords. 18. Sri M.D. Shekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that an application was filed by the tenant for cross-examination of landlord on the question of concealment of material facts, which was allowed and that the landlord in his cross-examination, (appended as Annexure 5-A to the writ petition) has admitted the fact that the family of the deceased landlord had inherited the shopping complex, in which two shops were vacant as such the Prescribed Authority had rightly rejected the release application by its order dated 24-1-1994 appended as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 19. It is urged that in the appeal the appellate Court has failed to consider that during the pendency of the litigation, one vacant shop was let out on rent by one of the co-owners i.e. the brother of the appellant during pendency of the appeal. He relied upon paragraph 20 of the writ petition, which is stated not to have been denied in the counter-affidavit. 20. Paragraph 20 of the writ petition is as under : “That the opposite party No. 1 while passing the impugned order had failed to take into notice that the opposite party No. 3 had knocked the door of the Court with uncleaned hands as while filing the release application concealed the fact regarding the existence of 16 shops possessed by the Joint Hindu Family in which he is a member. Later on this fact was brought in the notice of the Prescribed Authority by the petitioner then opposite party No. 3 admitted the said fact by admitting two shops are vacant. Later on this fact was brought in the notice of the Prescribed Authority by the petitioner then opposite party No. 3 admitted the said fact by admitting two shops are vacant. However, two shops were vacant out of which one shop after filing of the release application and during the pendency of the matter before the Prescribed Authority was let out to Ijaj Ahmad Mansoori and other shop was let out to Shahid Husssain s/o Jahid Hussain during the pendency of appeal before the appellate authority. The said rent deed was filed before the opposite party No. 1 it was a shop which was initially occupied at the time of filing of the release application by the Ex. MLA Sunder Lal, even though subsequent event had not been considered by the opposite party No. 1 and passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures.” 21. The reply of the paragraph 20 in the counter-affidavit is as under : “That the contents of paragraph 20 of the writ petition are specifically denied. Respondent No. 1 has passed a just and proper order in accordance with the evidence on record and settled principles of law.” 22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then relied upon Annexure RA-1, which is copy of plaint in partition suit No. 211 of 1989 alongwith schedule wherein Ram Bharosey has been shown as tenant of the shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 12 per month. He submits that when the respondents became apprehensive that he would not succeed in the appeal, he has filed an amendment application in which it was averred that the shop in dispute had fallen in his share this according to the petitioner was done in order to establish that the application filed by him alone was maintainable. 23. It is submitted that the tenant also opposed the amendment application stating that partition suit No. 211/1989 had been filed and the schedule of property attached to it showed that the shop in dispute was one mentioned for partition and was subject to litigation and hence it cannot be claimed by Sri Vishnu Kumar that the shop in dispute had fallen in his share exclusively and he alone is the landlord. 24. 24. He also submitted that an application was filed by the co-landlords for appointment of receiver in the said suit, which was rejected, as such the revision was filed, which was also dismissed and that since the co-owner had let out one of shops, which was vacant, the amendment application filed by the respondents was dismissed vide Annexure 9-B appended to the writ petition. It is urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the appellate Court committed an illegality in allowing the appeal vide order dated 14-8-1991 on the ground of genuine and bona fide need of the respondents-landlord. 25. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has then drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment of trial Court wherein the Prescribed Authority has given a finding that two shops were vacant in the complex but there is no evidence on record from which it is established that the aforesaid shops are in the possession of the petitioner. 26. 25. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has then drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment of trial Court wherein the Prescribed Authority has given a finding that two shops were vacant in the complex but there is no evidence on record from which it is established that the aforesaid shops are in the possession of the petitioner. 26. He then invited the attention of the Court to Annexure 5-A with an affidavit of Sri Vishnu Kumar s/o late Jagdish Agarwal wherein it has been stated in paras 1 and 2 : 1- ;g fd kiFkdrkZ ds firk Jh txnhk lju vxzoky vc thfor Fks rks la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj ds drkZ Fks ml le; muds LoxZokl ds le; rd 15 nqdkusa o ,d thuk cktkj ,syuxat eks0 m¡pk eks0 feFkkZu] cjsyh kkgtgk¡iqj jksM] Qjhniqj cjsyh tks fd nf{k.k :vk fLFkr gS blds vykok vU; dksbZ nqdku ugha gS vkSj u gh kiFkdrkZ ds firk Jh txnhk lju vxzoky ds le; Fkh rFkk u gh mlds ckn fdlh Hkh mRrjkf/kdkjh us dksbZ nqdku o vU; tk;nkn [kjhn ugha dh gSA tks tk;nkn firk NksM+ x;s ogh gS LoxZokl fnukad 12-11-1978 dks gks x;kA 2- ;g fd dqy iUnzg nqdkuksa esa ls rsjg nqdkus o ,d thuk fdjk;s ij gSA rsjg nqdkuksa o ,d thuk ds fdjk;snkjksa ds uke o jkstxkj ,oa fdjk;s dh Áfr ekg /kujkfk dk C;kSjk fuEu Ádkj gS %& Ø- la0 uke fdjk;snkj o irk Áfrekg jkstxkj dk C;kSjk fdjk;s ij , ucko nwYgk] eks0 fu0 m¡pk] 65@& nthZ dk dk;Z Qjhniqj ¼NksVh nqdku½ ch bdcky] eks0 fu0 m¡pk] Qjhniqj 300@& iku dh nqdku ¼NksVh nqdku½ lh cycUr] eks0 fu0 Q[kZiqj] Qjhniqj 140@& ijpwu dk dk;Z Mh gjh[k pUnz vxzoky] kiFkdrkZ ds & Lo;a O;kikj iUuh vkfn lcls cM+s fu0 eks0 dkusuxks;ku] dk djrs gSa o viuh QjhniqjA thfodk pykrs gSa b jru yky oS;] fu0 eks0 Q:{kkiqj 20@& ijpwuh o vU; QqVdj Qjhniqj dk;Z jsfM;ks ejEer dk dk;Z ,Q kCch vyh] fu0 eks mpk] Qjhniqj 25@& lkbZfdy ejEer dk dk;Z th vfuy dqekj vxzoky] fu0 23@& nthZ flykbZ dk dk;Z fcgkjhiqj] cjsyh ,p dchjmn~nhu] eks0 m¡pk] QjhniqjA 30@& lkbZfdy ejEer dk dk;Z vkbZ lksu vyh] ¼NksVh nqdku½ fu0 65@& lkbZfdy ejEer dk eks0 m¡pk QjhniqjA dk;Z ts okhj vyh] ¼NksVh nqdku½ 12@& ykVjh vkfn dk dk;Z fu0 eks0 mpk] Qjhniqj ds lqUnjyky egkk;] fu0 eks0 okfjn 24@& dSlsV cspus dk dk;Z gky ljk;] QjhniqjA fn[kk jgs gSa ,y jke Hkjksls yky ds okfjlku 12@& tcfd lqjsUnz nso fookfnr nqdku tks fd vkids odkyr djrs gSa le{k fopkj/khu gS] eks0 o buds HkkbZ ohjsUnz nso dkuwuxks;ku] QjhniqjA Lok0 foHkkx esa ,e0,u0,0 ds in ij Qrsgxat iwohZ esa rSukr gS ,e tkfgn [kkW] eks0 dkuwuxks;ku] 100@& lkbZfdy ejEer dk QjhniqjA dk;Z ,u fe<+bZ yky] iq= jke Lo:i fu0 40@& nthZ dk dk;Z eks0 Q:[kiqj]] QjhniqjA vks ,sglku mYyk ¼thuk½ fu0 eks0 8@& ejEer dk dk;Z vkfn mpk] QjhniqjA ih xksiky pUnz vxzoky kiFkdrkZ ds & diM+s dk QqVdj dk;Z cM+s HkkbZ fu0 eks0 dkuwuxks;ku tks fd fe/kku eksgYys QjhniqjA esa fLFkr gSA 27. He further invited the attention of the Court to Annexure 7 wherein the Prescribed Authority has considered the aforesaid affidavit paper No. 44a and recorded finding that 13 of the shops in the shopping complex had been given on rent and two shops available for doing his business. He submits that in view of these findings the landlord Vishnu Kumar does not have any genuine and bona fide need of the shops. 28. The relevant portion of the Annexure 9-B is as under : “Applicant Vishnu Kumar Agarwal has moved 38-b application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the release petition on the ground that at the time of arguments on 22-7-1999, the Counsel of the petitioner came to know that the plea of partial partition among the heirs after the death of their father had been let to be written which was necessary for disposal of the petition. The error is bona fide hence it was prayed that after the para-5, an amendment to the above effect be permitted to be incorporated. The application has been opposed by the opposite parties and 40-c objections has been filed in this regard. According to the objections, the application for amendment is not maintainable. No ground has been mentioned as to why the amendment application could not be moved before the Court below though the fact desired to be amended relates to the period before the filing of the release petition. The release petition of the applicant has been rejected by the lower Court. The amendment sought makes out a new case hence application is liable to be rejected”......”the petitioner, now in appeal, has sought permission to incorporate the plea of partial portion in para-5 of the petition which is a contradictory plea and cannot be said to be bona fide one. In para-3 and 4 of the petition, it has been clearly stated that all the heirs of deceased Jagdish Saran Agarwal became co-owners and landlords of the disputed shop.....” 29. The petitioner concludes that the Appellate Court has committed the illegality and error on the face of record setting aside the impugned order and judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the release application of the landlord and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be allowed. 30. The petitioner concludes that the Appellate Court has committed the illegality and error on the face of record setting aside the impugned order and judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the release application of the landlord and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be allowed. 30. Counsel for the respondents submits that infact plea of partial partition had been taken by the petitioner in the Court below as such the Prescribed Authority committed an illegality in not considering the plea of the co-landlord. He submits that the petitioner misled the Prescribed Authority by placing the first two paragraph of Annexure 5A quoted in the body of the judgment and had not placed subsequent part of the affidavit, which clearly shows that two shops said to be vacant were in the possession of his elder brother Harish Chandra, which was in his possession and after the death of their father Jagdish Saran came in possession of Harish Chandra and in which after his death, his son are doing business that Sri Harish Chandra was doing his independent business and had no concern with the Joint Hindu Family, which had disintegrated after the death of their father. In this regard he also relied upon paragraph 3 of the aforesaid affidavit appended as Annexure 5A, which was filed before the Prescribed Authority, which is as under : Þ3- ;g fd nks nqdkus voks"k jgrh gSa tks fdjk;s ij ugha gS mlesa kiFkdrkZ ds cM+s HkkbZ gjhkpUnz iq= txnhk lju vxzoky iUuh vkfn dk O;kikj djrs gSa rFkk nwljh nqdku ij xksiky pUnz iq= Jh txnhk lju vxzoky kiFkZdrkZ ds cM+s HkkbZ gSa diM+s dk QqVdj O;kikj djrs gSa tks Øek% Mh ,oa ih ua0 dh gSA mudk la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gS rFkk og nksuksa vius&vius ifjokj dk mijksDr O;kikj ls ikyu iks"k.k djrs gSaA 31. According to the respondents, the trial Court overlooked this important aspect in the affidavit filed before it and did not consider the whole document but only a part of it, as such, the trial Court committed an illegality in holding that two shops were available to the applicant Vishnu Kumar, who had filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the factual error apparent on face of record was therefore corrected by the Appellate Authority on the findings of the trial Court were perverse and against the evidence on record. 32. The Counsel further relied upon paragraph 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the release application and urged that after the family had disintegrated and the member of Joint Hindu Family separated into separate unit, he became landlord of the shop in dispute in the tenancy of Ram Lal (since deceased) by mutual partition after the death of their father Jagdish Saran. His brother i.e. Sri Gopal had also separated and was doing own independent business in the shops, which had come under his tenancy. 33. It is urged that during the pendency of any suit for partition, there is no bar that the parties may not come to a family settlement. Since the petitioner was given the shop in dispute in the family settlement for carrying on his independent business hence he rightly initiated proceedings for release of the shops as every member of the landlord is entitled to do his independent business. 34. It is vehemently urged that the petitioner-tenant had let out the shop to one Sri Bireshwar, opposite party No. 4 in the release application, hence on this ground also the release application was entitled to be allowed particularly as one of the son of the deceased tenant Ram Bharose was a lawyer and other was in service. 35. It appears from the rent deed filed by the petitioner that it has been executed by Sri Gopal s/o Sri Jagdish Saran on 11-8-1997 in favour of Sri Shahid Hussain on rent in his own right as landlord and not a co-tenant. The partition suit was filed in the year 1989 whereas the release application filed by Vishnu Kumar in the year 1991. The partition was effected after filing of the suit, which is apparent from the affidavit filed by the landlord Sri Vishnu before the Prescribed Authority. 36. The partition suit was filed in the year 1989 whereas the release application filed by Vishnu Kumar in the year 1991. The partition was effected after filing of the suit, which is apparent from the affidavit filed by the landlord Sri Vishnu before the Prescribed Authority. 36. The appellate Court has by cogent reasons noted the contention raised by the petitioner. Regarding the contention that the Prescribed Authority had illegally and wrongly held that petition was not maintainable as it had not been filed by all the co-landlords and LR’s of late Jagdish Saran Agarwal. The Appellate Court found that the properties of Late Jagdish Saran Agarwal had been mutually partitioned and the disputed shop had come in his possession the petition filed by the appellant was maintainable. The Appellate Court further held that findings of the Prescribed Authority are not in accordance with law for the reason that learned Prescribed Authority has not accepted the plea of partial partition on the ground that the petitioner has himself given contradictory pleadings in the petition as he has stated to be co-landlord and also sole owner and the landlord of the disputed shop which is not possible at all. 37. Accepting the plea of partial partition of the properties on basis of map of partial partition filed by the landlord signed by all the co-owners, showing that the shop in dispute had fallen in the share of Vishnu Kumar held that the petitioner has filed a map of mutual partition which is paper No. 35-c which has been signed by all the co-owners, in which the disputed shop was marked as shop No. 3 and the same is said to be in the share of the petitioner. Thus, the mutual partition of the shops is established from the evidence on record. 38. Relying upon Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court rendered in AIR 1987 All 261 the Appellate Court rightly held that the decision to the contrary cited by the tenants in Smt. Sughra Begum v. Sri Ram and others, ARC 1983 (2) 143 was not applicable. 39. As regards the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship is concerned the appellate Court after appreciation of contentions of the parties and on basis of record has found that no other shop was available or in possession of the landlord. 39. As regards the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship is concerned the appellate Court after appreciation of contentions of the parties and on basis of record has found that no other shop was available or in possession of the landlord. The Court held that in one of the affidavits of the petition, it has been specifically mentioned that there are 15 shops in all which were left by the deceased father of the petitioner. Out of them, 13 shops have been let out to different tenant including the opposite parties whereas only two shops are in possession of brothers of the petitioner. The opposite parties have stated in their affidavit that there are 16 shops left by the deceased father of the petitioner. But no reliable evidence has been produced that there are 16 shops and any shop is available for the business of the petitioner. The finding of the learned Prescribed Authority is that two shops are vacant in which the petitioner can carry on his business. But I do not find any evidence on the file which may prove that any such shop is vacant and is in the possession of the petitioner. Thus, the finding of learned Prescribed Authority regarding the availability of any shop to the petitioner is based without any evidence. The brother of petitioner Sushil Kumar Agarwal has filed affidavit 56(a) which has fully supported the case of the petitioner. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the disputed shop has come in the share of the petitioner. The petitioner is not doing any business and has no interest in the business of Gopal Chandra. On behalf of the opposite parties, it has been argued that Gopal Chandra has let out the shop during pendency. The certificate of the lease-deed has been filed in which it has been mentioned that Gopal Chandra has let out the shop to some one. From this, it is also proved that mutual partition between the brothers has taken place otherwise the same would have not been let out only by one of the brothers. From the evidence on record, thus, it is fully proved that the appellant has no vacant shop in his possession from where he can carry on any business. The need of the appellant-petitioner is, therefore, found quite genuine and bona fide. From the evidence on record, thus, it is fully proved that the appellant has no vacant shop in his possession from where he can carry on any business. The need of the appellant-petitioner is, therefore, found quite genuine and bona fide. Every landlord has right to do some business for his income so that he may maintain himself and his family. 40. It is further held that so far as the question of comparative hardship from the release of the disputed shop is concerned, if the disputed shop is not released in favour of the petitioner, he will not be able to do any business and will have left in misery. So far as the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are concerned, it is fully proved that apposite party No. 1 is a practicing lawyer. He has his own house in Fareedpur Qasba. He can do his practice and maintain his office in his house. Opposite party No. 2 is in Government service. So far as opposite party No. 3 is concerned, admittedly she is an old lady. According to the petitioner’s evidence, her age is about 70 years which has not been denied by the opposite parties. Admittedly she is not doing any business herself from the disputed shop. But is doing some business through some salesman. No documentary evidence of any business has been produced by the opposite parties. Moreover, the sons of opposite party No. 3 are competent to maintain their mother. Thus, no hardship would be cause to opposite parties 1 to 3 if they are evicted from the disputed shop. The appellant has relied on the case law, 1984 LRJ 27, Dr. Munni Lal v. IVth Additional District Judge, Etah and has argued that the petition is pending for last 10 years and the tenants had been contesting it but they had no attempt to find out any accommodation and this fact is a relevant circumstances for considering comparative hardship. The above cited ruling is quite applicable to the facts of the present case as the opposite parties have not made any efforts to find out alternative accommodation. 41. I have also considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner in respect of findings recorded by the Appellate Court regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship and the records appended with the writ petition. 42. 41. I have also considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner in respect of findings recorded by the Appellate Court regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship and the records appended with the writ petition. 42. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which had been overlooked by the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that from the record, it is proved that mutual partition had taken place and that there is no vacant shop in the possession of the appellant in which he could establish his independent business, as such need of the petitioner is genuine and bona fide and comparative hardship is also in his favour. 43. The Appellate Court has also found that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and he has maintained his office in his house. As regards his other brother, he was in Government service. The mother of the tenant is 70 years of old lady. It has not been denied by the tenant that she is not doing any business herself in disputed shop but is said to have been carrying her business through a salesman regarding whom no documentary evidence has been produced by tenant. 44. From the above fact, it is clear that both sons of the erstwhile tenants can look her mother, who is about 70 years of old. It is not expected that the children will not look after old mother and she will have to do business at this old age. The tenants have not made any efforts to find out any alternate accommodation. Moreover what business is being carried on by the mother is neither placed by any record nor there is any evidence that she is carrying on business through a salesman, as such plea appears to be false. This plea of the respondents landlord is only a camouflage to conceal that the shop has been sub let in the garb of business done by the mother through a salesman. 45. For the reasons stated above the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority regarding maintainability of the application, bona fide need and comparative hardship of the landlord is perverse and against the material on record. The Appellate Authority has rightly set aside the perverse findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. 46. 45. For the reasons stated above the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority regarding maintainability of the application, bona fide need and comparative hardship of the landlord is perverse and against the material on record. The Appellate Authority has rightly set aside the perverse findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority. 46. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is, therefore, liable to be upheld and the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 5,000/- which shall be payable by the tenants to the landlords within a period of two months from today. 47. The petition is accordingly, dismissed and it is directed that the petitioner will vacate the shop and handed over its peaceful possession to the landlord Sri Vishnu Kumar respondent No. 3 within a period of two months from the date of delivery of the judgment. In case of default, it would be open for the landlord to get the shop evicted through police force in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ————