JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing judgment and order dated 28-2-2000 passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sitapur in Rent Case Appeal No. 8 of 1998 (Virendra Kumar v. Vijay Kumar Srivastava) whereby judgment and order dated 10-8-1998 passed by the Prescribed authority i.e. IInd Additional Civil Judge, (S.D.) Sitapur, was set-aside. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the writ petition are as follows : 3. An application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short “Act”) was filed by Virendra Kumar Arya (in short “landlord”) for the release of the disputed shop for his personal and for his sons need, in the year 1995 on the allegation that he is a owner of the shop of which petitioner is a tenant @ Rs. 93.75 per month. It was further stated that the landlord is having a licence for running a medical retail shop as well as for selling denatured spirit, but he is unable to carry on the business due to paucity of accommodation. 4. It was further stated in the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act that the landlord due to paucity of accommodation is unable to carry on the business from the shop in the joint possession of his son Yogendra Kumar who is running a business of whole sale medicine from the said shop in the name and style of “Arya Medical Hall”. It was further stated that they are not having good relations and very often they quarrel because of the paucity of accommodation. 5. It was further stated that his other son Yatendra Kumar is also doing a business of mehandi, hawan samagri and tea leaflet etc. in the name and style of “Arya Industries”. Since his son Yatendra Kumar has no independent suitable shop for carrying on his business as such he is forced to carry on his business from the one room of his residence, which is not situated in a market area but located in a very narrow lane due to which Yatendra Kumar is unable to run his business properly. The residential accommodation of the landlord is not at all suitable and sufficient to carry on any business. 6. The residential accommodation of the landlord is not at all suitable and sufficient to carry on any business. 6. It was further stated in the application that the tenant has a very huge double storied house at Buttsganj, Sitapur which is situated in the market area and the petitioner can very conveniently carry on business from the rooms of the ground floor facing the main road. Moreover the tenant did not make any efforts to search any accommodation. It was further stated that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine and the comparative hardship also tilts in favour of the landlord. 7. The petitioner (in short “tenant”) filed his written statement on 10.1.1996 and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and further admitted that Yatendra Kumar is running his business prior to the filing of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner though admitted that he owns a house but stated that it is a joint family property. 8. It was further stated by the tenant that the landlord has constructed a new shop over the disputed shop, which is lying vacant and can be used by the landlord. It was further stated by the tenant that the landlord has a very big house and there is no paucity of accommodation and further stated that around 17-18 months back the landlord had sold off, one of his shop adjoining to the disputed shop to one Dr. Kedar Nath, for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. 9. The landlord filed a replication, wherein he though admitted that one shop was sold off to Dr. Kedar Nath around two years back prior to the filing of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, however, he clarified that it was sold merely to generate funds for the marriage of his daughter and to provide funds to his sons for business purposes. It was further stated that Yogendra Kumar, son of the landlord is carrying on his business from rear portion of the shop and the landlord has constructed a room (still unfinished) over the disputed shop which is totally unsuitable for commercial purpose. 10. Both the parties led evidences to establish their respective cases before the prescribed authority. It was further stated that Yogendra Kumar, son of the landlord is carrying on his business from rear portion of the shop and the landlord has constructed a room (still unfinished) over the disputed shop which is totally unsuitable for commercial purpose. 10. Both the parties led evidences to establish their respective cases before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority by order dated 10.8.1998 dismissed the release application of the landlord holding that landlord and his two sons have suitable and sufficient accommodation for carrying on their business whereas the tenant has no other alternative accommodation for running his business and the tenant cannot be compelled to carry on business from his house. 11. Aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment and order dated 10-8-1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority, dismissing the release application under Section 21(1) of the Act, the respondent- landlord filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. During the pendency of appeal the respondent-landlord moved an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and the said application was allowed and after making spot inspection the Advocate Commissioner filed inspection report along-with site plan. The Advocate Commissioner in his report, inter-alia, stated that there is only an Iron ladder for reaching the first floor room over the shop which has no permanent stair case. 12. The Third Additional District Judge by order dated 28-2-2000 allowed the appeal of respondent-landlord and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and recorded a finding that the need of the landlord genuine and pressing and comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord and further held that the petitioner-tenant can run his business from the residential house. Hence this writ petition by the tenant. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the petitioner can carry on his business from his house without considering the fact that the residential house of the petitioner is a joint family property in which all his siblings have a share and the petitioner is not a sole owner of the same. He has further submitted that the lower appellate Court has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority without reversing the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the point of bona fide need and comparative hardship. He has further submitted that the lower appellate Court has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority without reversing the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the point of bona fide need and comparative hardship. He has further submitted that the lower appellate Court has misread the pleadings and evidences of the parties and has not appreciated that the landlord sold off one adjoining shop to Dr. Kedar Nath Rastogi 17-18 months prior to the filing of application under Section 21 of the Act. 14. Per contra learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that Yatendra Kumar the eldest son of the respondent was running his business from a small room situated on the ground floor of his house. The second son Yogendra Kumar is keeping his stock and carrying on his business from rear portion of the shop which has a breadth of only 4.10" ft. Both the sons of the deponent have no independent suitable shops to carry on business as there is only one shop available to the entire family of the landlord measuring just 4.10" ft. x 18.0" ft. adjacent to the disputed shop. It was further submitted that landlord being the father has a social and moral duty to provide suitable and sufficient accommodations to his sons and to establish them independently in their business. It was further submitted that in the rear portion of the shop a very small under ground room was constructed by the landlord to provide some extra space to son Yogendra Kumar for the storage of medicines. The aforesaid shop is nothing just a narrow strip measuring 4.10" ft. x 18.0" ft., having a common entrance and exit, wherein the landlord and his son Yogendra Kumar are trying to carrying on their separate business with great difficulty. 15. The learned counsel for the landlord has further submitted that in the year 1993 the landlord in order to pay off his debts and to arrange funds for the marriage of his daughter and to provide funds to his sons for the business purpose sold one of his shop to the existing tenant Dr. Kedar Nath Rastogi much prior to the filing of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The said shop was neither vacant nor was in possession of the landlord. Kedar Nath Rastogi much prior to the filing of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The said shop was neither vacant nor was in possession of the landlord. It is further submitted that admittedly the petitioner-tenant never made any efforts to find out any alternative accommodation during the pendency of the release application. 16. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that he is not bound to provide only alternative accommodation to the tenant but still he offered the first floor accommodation over the disputed shop to the tenant but he refused to accept the offer on the ground that the first floor of the shop is not suitable to the tenant. 17. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that the trial Court has totally ignored the vital fact that the house of the tenant is situated in a commercial area where he can run his business from the ground floor rooms of his house facing the main road. 18. The learned counsel for the landlord has further referred to the Advocate Commissioner’s report wherein inter alia, it is stated that the shop in possession of the landlord is only 4.10" ft. wide and the room constructed over the said shop was found incomplete but found sufficient and suitable accommodation in the ground floor of the house of the tenant for carrying on the business. The Advocate Commissioner has also found number of vacant shops in the vicinity of the house. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the brothers of the tenant are employed and posted out side Sitapur. The learned counsel for the landlord has rightly set-aside the findings of the prescribed authority and has recorded the finding of fact of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord and it was further contended that the Appellate Court is a last fact finding Court and has jurisdiction to substitute its own finding. It was further submitted that the finding of the prescribed authority is against the evidence on record and therefore, the Appellate authority was justified in setting aside the same. 19. It was further submitted that the finding of the prescribed authority is against the evidence on record and therefore, the Appellate authority was justified in setting aside the same. 19. The learned counsel for the landlord has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Shakuntala Devi Rathod v. Smt. Raj Kumari and others, 2008(2) ADJ 189 , (ii) Sushila v. A.D.J., AIR 2003 SC 780 , (iii) R.K. Govil v. Maqsoodan, 2007 (4) SCC 456, (iv) Mohd. Arif v. Third Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, (v) Ram Narain Mathur v. Prem Kishore Srivastava and another, 2006(5) ADJ 256 , (vi) Shiv Murti Sharma v. ADJ, 1991 (1) ARC 449, (vii) Moeed Khan alias Guddu v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, (viii) Chaudhary Ram v. IIIrd ADJ Saharanpur and others, 1999(2) ARC 334. 20. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 21. The dispute is with regard to the release of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner @ Rs. 93.75 per month measuring 7.6" ft. x 18.9" ft. The landlord is having a licence for running a medical retail shop as well as for selling denatured spirit, but he is unable to carry on the business due to paucity of accommodation. Yogendra Kumar son of the landlord is carrying on the business in the name and style of “Arya Medical” from the rear portion of the shop and the landlord is carrying on the business of medicines and denatured spirit from the front portion of the shop having a width of 4.10" ft. with a common entrance and exit. 22. The family of the landlord consisted of himself and two sons and two daughter-in-law and two grand children. The accommodation in the house consist of 2 rooms, one small Varanda, one Agan, one Bathroom, one Kitchen on the ground floor and two rooms, one toilet, terrace on first floor and one Tin shed on second floor. Yatindra Kumar son of the landlord is doing business of Hawan Samagri, Mehandi, tea etc. in the name and style of “Arya Industries”. Yogendra Kumar is doing whole-sale business of medicine in the name and style of “Arya Medical”. Both the sons initially started their business in the year 1993 from their residence since they did have any other suitable alternative accommodation, therefore the address of the business place in their licence was mentioned as “Nai Basti, Sitapur”. Yogendra Kumar is doing whole-sale business of medicine in the name and style of “Arya Medical”. Both the sons initially started their business in the year 1993 from their residence since they did have any other suitable alternative accommodation, therefore the address of the business place in their licence was mentioned as “Nai Basti, Sitapur”. 23. The Prescribed Authority after disbelieving the case of the landlord held that Yogendra Kumar is running a whole-sale business from the shop and the licence for carrying on the medicine business contains the address of his residence, as such his need for disputed shop is not bona fide. The Prescribed Authority evaluated the need of both the sons jointly and held that four following accommodations are available to his sons (a) the shop in which he is doing business of denatured spirit, (b) portion of the aforesaid shop towards east, in occupation of the landlord is available to the son of the landlord for doing business, the approach of which is through the existing shop, (c) the room constructed by the landlord during the pendency of release application on the first floor of the shop, approach of which is through iron ladder fitted at the front of the shop in dispute on Kharanja regarding which Civil suit is pending, and (d) room of the residential house was considered sufficient and the prescribed authority concluded that carrying on the business from the residence would not cause any inconvenience or hardship to the landlord and found the need of both the sons not bona fide and genuine. 24. Vital facts which emerged from the perusal of the pleadings and evidences available on record are as follows : (i) There are three male adult members in the family of landlord viz. self (landlord), Yatendra Kumar and Yogendra Kumar. (ii) The petitioner tenant has his own house at 150-Nai Basti Sitapur. 24. Vital facts which emerged from the perusal of the pleadings and evidences available on record are as follows : (i) There are three male adult members in the family of landlord viz. self (landlord), Yatendra Kumar and Yogendra Kumar. (ii) The petitioner tenant has his own house at 150-Nai Basti Sitapur. (iii) The landlord has one shop adjacent to the disputed shop measuring 4.10" x 18.9" wherein the petitioner is carrying on the business of denatured spirit and retail medical business and from the very same shop his other son Yogendra Kumar is also carrying on the business of whole-sale business of medicine from the rear portion of the shop and does not have independent exit/entrance (passage is common), as such this shop is being used jointly by the landlord and his son Yogendra Kumar for carrying on their separate and distinct business. (iv) Above that shop there is one constructed room (unfinished). The access to this room is through an Iron Ladder fitted in front of the shop on Kharanja, regarding which a Civil suit is pending before the Court. (v) The tenant’s house is situated on Lucknow-Shahjahanpur Highway which is surrounded by commercial shops including a Hospital. The Commissioner has found two rooms in the ground floor facing the road regarding which the appellate authority has observed that it can be used for commercial purpose by the petitioner-tenant. (vi) Offer in respect of the first floor room above the disputed shop was given by the landlord to the tenant, but the same was refused by the tenant on the ground that the same is not suitable for business purposes. One shop in the possession of Dr. Kedar Nath was sold by the petitioner much prior to the filing of release application due to urgent need of money to perform marriage of his daughter and to settle his sons in the business. The said shop was not vacant and was in actual physical possession and tenancy of Dr. Kedar Nath. (vii) The trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 21 of the Act gave much stress on the fact that the petitioner’s sons are carrying on the business from their residence and licences issued by the authority concerned contains the address of their residence. Kedar Nath. (vii) The trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 21 of the Act gave much stress on the fact that the petitioner’s sons are carrying on the business from their residence and licences issued by the authority concerned contains the address of their residence. Thus, the Prescribed Authority mainly on the ground that the residential portion can be used for business purposes, found the need of the landlord and his sons not to be bona fide and genuine. It has further been held by the Prescribed Authority that the ground floor shop in possession of landlord is being used by the landlord as well as by his son Yogendra Kumar jointly for carrying on their independent and distinct business. The rear portion of the shop towards east is being used by Yogendra Kumar for storing his stock. The appellate authority while setting aside the order of the trial Court held that the existing accommodation of respondent-landlord is neither suitable nor sufficient to carry on the business by the landlord and his two sons. 25. In Shakuntala Devi Rathod v. Smt. Raj Kumari and others, 2008 (1) ARC 242 , this Court has been held that every adult member of family is entitled to have independent separate business. No member can be compelled to participate in the family business. It has been further held that availability of less suitable accommodation is no ground to get more suitable accommodation and the landlord is completely free to choose the place where he wants to do business or reside. 26. In Sushila v. A.D.J., AIR 2003 SC 780 and R.K. Govil v. Maqsoodan, 2007 (4) SCC 456, Apex Court has held that every adult member of the landlord’s family is entitled to have independent separate business and no family member of the landlord can be compelled to participate in the family business. 27. In Mohd. Arif v. Third Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, this Court has held that where a person is doing business alongwith his father, then his need cannot be said to be bona fide need. It has been further held that neither the original tenant nor after his death their legal heirs had made any effort to search alternative accommodation, comparative hardship lies in favour of landlord. 28. It has been further held that neither the original tenant nor after his death their legal heirs had made any effort to search alternative accommodation, comparative hardship lies in favour of landlord. 28. This Court in Ram Narain Mathur v. Prem Kishor Srivastava and another, 2006 (2) ARC 681 , has held that the contention of the tenant cannot be accepted as unless demonstrated by the petitioner that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority with regard to bona fide and comparative hardship are either perverse or suffer from manifest error of law the same cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 29. This Court in Shiv Murti Sharma v. ADJ, 1991 (1) ARC 449, has held that the tenant cannot dictate as to how he (landlord) will adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises while deciding the question of bona fide need of the landlord and how the landlord could have adjusted himself. 30. This Court in Choudhary Ram v. IIIrd ADJ, Saharanpur and others, 1999(2) ARC 334, has held as follows : “It was submitted that when a building is used exclusively for residential purpose the landlord cannot be compelled to convert any portion of their residential house for non-residential use and thereby reduce the extent of their residential accommodation. In support of his argument learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Prem Prakash Gupta and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1993(1) ARC 77, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held : “It may further be notice that taking into consideration the policy and the object behind Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is for the benefit of the landlord, there can be no manner of doubt that the intention has been not to reduce the availability of the residential accommodation. Sub-clause (ii) of the third proviso to Section 21 prohibits release of any portion of residential accommodation for business purpose. This provision re-enforces the above aspect. Sub-clause (ii) of the third proviso to Section 21 prohibits release of any portion of residential accommodation for business purpose. This provision re-enforces the above aspect. When an accommodation in the occupation of a tenant which is being utilized for residential purpose cannot be allowed to be used for business purpose and released on this account, there can be arise any question of compelling a landlord to convert a part of the residential building in his occupation for use of business purpose and refuse the grant of release on the ground that a part of the residential accommodation can be utilized for business purpose compelling thereby the reduction of residential accommodation contrary to the policy underlying the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act.” 31. In the case of Chaudhary Ram v. IIIrd ADJ Saharanpur and others (supra), this Court has further held that the landlord has a right to live comfortably in his residential house. He cannot be forced to convert any portion into a commercial purpose. 32. Keeping in view of the aforesaid decisions, the appellate Court has very rightly held that the residential accommodation is neither sufficient nor suitable to carry on the business by the sons of the landlord-respondent and moreover the said house of the respondent-landlord is not in the commercial area, but is situated in the residential colony and cannot be used for commercial purposes. Landlord cannot be forced to convert any residential portion into a commercial purpose, causing reduction of residential accommodation. 33. Even the existing shop used by the landlord cannot be shared by him with his son Yogendra Kumar, as already, the landlord is possessing a licence to carry on the business of denatured spirit, and also a licence for carrying on the business of medical shop which requires a lot of space and specially the nature of the business as well extent of the accommodation available in the shop clearly suggests that it cannot be shared with any one, not even with his son Yogendra Kumar, who himself is having a whole-sale business of medicines in the name and style of Arya Medical Hall. His son Yogendra Kumar requires independent and huge accommodation for carrying on the business of medicines wherein he has to maintain a show room, place for storing the medicines and require a proper suitable place for entertaining the customers as well as dealers and besides his father/landlord also is carrying on the independent and separate business of medicines, apart from denatured spirit from the front portion of the said shop having common entrance and exit as such landlord and his son cannot run their independent business from the same shop measuring 4.10" ft. x 18.0" ft. 34. Even the other son Yatendra Kumar has got no suitable proper accommodation to carry on business of Hawan Samagri and sell Tea leaf, for which he has got a licence in the name and style of Arya Industries. It has also come on record that the newly constructed room (unfinished) is on the first floor of the shop having access only through the Iron Ladder fitted at front of the shop in dispute on Kharanja regarding which Civil suit is pending in the lower Court. It is relevant to observe here that the said accommodation on the first floor was offered by the landlord to the petitioner, but the same was refused by the tenant on the ground that it is not a suitable accommodation for carrying on the business. If it is not suitable for the landlord to carry on the business from that room then how can it be said that the same accommodation will be suitable and sufficient for Yatendra Kumar, son of the landlord to carry on the business. It cannot be ignored that in the family of the landlord there are three adult male members and they have only one shop in possession adjacent to the disputed shop. Therefore, the finding of the appellate Court with regard to bona fide and genuine need of the respondent-landlord cannot be denied. Each and every adult member of the family has got a right to carry on independent business and they cannot be forced to join joint family business as it has already been held in catena of decisions by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. 35. Each and every adult member of the family has got a right to carry on independent business and they cannot be forced to join joint family business as it has already been held in catena of decisions by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. 35. The appellate Court has recorded a finding on the basis of the report of Advocate Commissioner that the tenant has already got sufficient accommodation at his residence on the ground-floor facing the main road, which is surrounded by commercial market including one hospital. It has also come on record that the brothers of the petitioner are employed outside Sitapur and the partition of the landlord has not been made, as such, the tenant can very easily establish his business on the ground floor portion of his residence. It has also come on the record that since the filing of the application under Section 21 of the Act no effort has been made by the tenant to search alternative accommodation as such the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord. 36. It has been already held by this Court in Kailash Prasad (supra) and many other decisions of this Court that if the tenant has not made any effort to search alternative accommodation then comparative hardship is against the tenant. 37. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on the point that the appellate Court without meeting the reasoning of the trial Court has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. It is true that the judgment has not been happily worded/drafted and the appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court has not met thoroughly each and every reasons assigned by the Prescribed Authority. It is true that the judgment has not been happily worded/drafted and the appellate Court while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court has not met thoroughly each and every reasons assigned by the Prescribed Authority. But a plain reading of the judgment clearly shows that the appellate Court has applied his mind to the fact and law placed before him and has held on the basis of the material available on record that the residential accommodation of the landlord is neither suitable nor sufficient to carry on the business and the landlord cannot be compelled to convert the use of residential accommodation into commercial purpose and has further held that the bona fide need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide and has further discussed the issue regarding comparative hardship by holding that the tenant has suitable accommodation at his residence to carry on the business and further held that the existing commercial accommodation with the landlord is not suitable to adjust his two sons. 38. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has placed much reliance upon the provisions of Sections 22, 10 and 34(7) of the Act to support his argument and also have placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Moeed Khan alias Guddu v. Third Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, wherein this Court has held that the Appellate Authority has to traverse upon the reasons pointed out by the Prescribed Authority and should point out the defect therein, if it wants to reverse the findings. 39. The reasoning recorded by the appellate authority while setting aside the order of the trial Court, cannot be said to be perverse or being contrary to the mandatory provision of law applicable or based on any extraneous or irrelevant material, even though the appellate Court might have not met each and every reasons assigned by the trial Court thoroughly but has given enough cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons for recording his own independent finding and the appellate Court being last fact finding authority in the Rent Control Act, has got every right to record his own reasons. Moreover, the Apex Court in R.K. Burnwal v. Ram Lakhan, 2007 AIR SCW 3250, has held that even if the landlord lost his release application from both the Courts below still if in the opinion of the High Court impugned orders are erroneous in law then all efforts must be made to decide the writ petition finally instead of remanding the matter. The same view has also been taken by Apex Court in G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin and others, AIR 2002 SC 200 , wherein the Apex Court out rightly allowed the release application of the landlord which had been dismissed by the prescribed authority/appellate Court as well as High Court. 40. A bare perusal of the judgment of the prescribed authority clearly shows that entire order is lop sided and the approach adopted by the Prescribed Authority is too casual and technical and it cannot be countenanced. The Prescribed Authority was swayed away by totally irrelevant consideration and undue stress has been given by the Prescribed Authority to the fact that the address in the licence issued to the sons of landlord is of their residence which prompted the prescribed authority to conclude that in all probabilities, sons of the landlord are bound to carry on the business from their residence without considering suitability and sufficiency of the accommodation available at the residence of the landlord. 41. The lower appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine and also found the comparative hardship in favour of the landlord and the said findings are based on record. The lower appellate Court has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons. The findings recorded by the lower appellate Court are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court. 42. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ————