ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner, who is tenant of the shop in dispute, has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which shall here-in-after referred to as the Act dated 8th October, 2003, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition, whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord and set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority under the Act dated 5th february, 1999 and directed release of the shop in dispute in favour of the respondent-landlord. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in dispute from the time of Rameshwar prasad Agrawal, who was landlord, which is not disputed. The respondent umesh Chandra Agrawal is the son of Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal and as per the case set up by respondent Umesh Chandra Agrawal he is landlord of the accommodation in question in which the shop in dispute is situated, by virtue of family settlement according to which the accommodation in question fell in the share of Umesh Chandra Agrawal. The landlord Umesh chandra Agrawal filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act before the prescribed authority for the release of the shop in dispute, which is non-residential accommodation in favour of landlord Umesh Chandra agrawal for his personal need. The need set up by the landlord Umesh chandra that he was in private employment and ceased to be under employment during the pendency of the litigation, therefore after cessation of the employment he is carrying on small scale business of medicines from his residential accommodation and further in order to augment his income, he required the shop in dispute from where he will carry out his business. The prescribed authority vide its order dated 5th february, 1999, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, dismissed the application for release of the shop in question filed by the landlord. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the respondent-landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the prescribed authority, the respondent-landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide its order dated 19th May, 2001 allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and directed the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord within three months. The petitioner instead of vacating the accommodation in question preferred a writ petition being civil misc. writ petition no. 26863 of 2001 before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2001. This court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 19th May, 2001 passed by the appellate authority and directed the matter to go back to the appellate authority with a direction that the appellate authority shall afford an opportunity to the tenant-petitioner to file supplementary rejoinder affidavit and after filing the aforesaid affidavit, the appellate authority shall decide the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law. After remand the matter came up before the appellate authority, where the parties have exchanged their affidavits as per direction issued by this Court. The appellate authority vide its order dated 8th October, 2003, which is impugned in the present petition, allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority and directed release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord Umesh Chandra Agrawal, thus this writ petition. ( 4 ) BEFORE the appellate authority, the main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-tenant is that Umesh Chandra Agrawal, the respondent here-in, is not the landlord of the accommodation in question as there is no material on record to sow that the family settlement has been acted upon and that the same was not on record during the application filed by umesh Chandra Agrawal under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, therefore the application for release of the accommodation in question filed by Umesh chandra Agrawal is not maintainable. The appellate authority found that the father of Umesh Chandra Agrawal who was admittedly the landlord, namely, Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal has filed an affidavit wherein he has stated that the property was part of the Hindu Un-divided Family, which has been partitioned by family settlement and the accommodation in question fell in the share of Umesh Chandra Agrawal. The appellate authority while dealing with the matter have relied upon the decisions reported in 1995 (1) A. R. C,, 181; 1994 (23) A. L. R. , 597; A. I. R. 1975 C. C. , 1119 and 1984 (10) A. L. R. , 216 and in order to arrive at the finding that umesh Chandra Agrawal is the landlord have held that after the family settlement in which the shop in dispute fell into the share of Umesh chandra Agrawal who is the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. The appellate authority has held that from the evidence on record the landlord has been able to establish his case regarding family settlement by means of partition and that the accommodation in question fell in his share, as is also evidence that after family settlement the petitioner-tenant was informed by the notice dated 8th January, 1997 that the accommodation in question is now owned by Umesh Chandra Agrawal and that the tenant should start paying the rent to him. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the appellate authority arrived at the finding that there is relationship of the landlord between the petitioner-tenant and the respondent Umesh chandra Agrawal. The petitioner-tenant relied upon a suit, which was filed between the Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal and Umesh Chandra Agrawal with regard to the property, which was ultimately dismissed, therefore there is no material to the contrary that Umesh Chandra Agrawal is not the landlord. ( 5 ) THE appellate authority on the basis of evidence on record further found that Umesh Chandra is carrying on his business of medicines from his residential building and he has no alternative accommodation/building to set up his business. The alternative shops suggested by the tenant-petitioner are occupied either by one or the other tenant. The appellate authority therefore found that the need of landlord Umesh chandra is bona fide and more pressing than that of the petitioner-tenant. The alternative shops suggested by the tenant-petitioner are occupied either by one or the other tenant. The appellate authority therefore found that the need of landlord Umesh chandra is bona fide and more pressing than that of the petitioner-tenant. ( 6 ) IN reply to the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-tenant that the landlord is carrying on his business from his residential accommodation he requires the shop in question for better establishment, whereas if the shop in dispute is released in favour of the landlord, the tenant will be completely uprooted. The appellate authority answered the aforesaid argument relying upon the decisions of this Court by the tenant reported in 1993 (2) A. R. C. , 63; 1995 (2) A. R. C, 107; 1995 (1) A. R. C. , 170 and 1997 A. LR. , 622. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, the appellate authority have found that the need of the landlord is more pressing and he cannot be forced to continue his business with his residential accommodation. On the question of alternative accommodation, the appellate authority has recorded finding that newly constructed shops are available in the shopping complex which is just at a small distance from the shop in dispute and Gandhi Ashram has its own reputation which will hardly affect any business of the tenant if it shifted to that place. Thus the appellate authority decided against the tenant on the question of comparative hardship also. ( 7 ) BEFORE this Court the same arguments advanced as were advanced before the appellate authority. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority and it has not been demonstrated before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the finding arrived at by the appellate authority is either perverse, or suffers from any error, much less manifest error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .