JUDGMENT DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.-Heard Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. However, none appears for the respondents even though case was taken up in the revised list. 2. This petition by the landlord is directed against an appellate order dated 4.9.1999 by which the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 15.7.1998 allowing the release application has been quashed. 3. The petitioner-landlady preferred an application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 illter alia with the allegation that she had purchased the disputed house through a registered sale-deed dated 31.5.1998 wherein one Laxman Singh was the tenant at the rent of Rs. 15/- per month of a shop situated on the ground floor but thereafter he died and the respondents 1 being his heirs became tenants. Her husband was working as Assistant Me 'r Inspector in the Electricity Department at Shamli who retired on 31.8.1994 and therefore she asked the tenants to vacate the premises as her husband wanted to start an electrical goods business from the disputed shop and on their refusal, she was forced to file the release application setting up the need. It was further stated that she or her husband has no other house or shop from where he can start his business. 4. The respondent-tenants contested the application inter alia on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was receiving a handsome pension and one son was employed in O.N.G.C and therefore, they did not require the premises for business. It was further stated that the premises is a huge building. consisting of about 8-9 rooms, out which, 5 rooms are on the ground floor along with 'Baithak' (living room) which could be used for the business of landlady's husband. It is further stated that he is doing business of Goldsmith from the disputed shop since long and therefore( his eviction would cause more hardship to him. 5. After the parties had led their evidence, the Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence on record held that the need set up by the landlady was bona fide and genuine and it also went on to hold that in case of rejection of the application, greater hardship would be caused to the landlady. 6. 5. After the parties had led their evidence, the Prescribed Authority after considering the evidence on record held that the need set up by the landlady was bona fide and genuine and it also went on to hold that in case of rejection of the application, greater hardship would be caused to the landlady. 6. Aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court recorded a finding that the ground floor of the premises consisting of five rooms are big enough and if there was any need to start a business from a shop, 'Living room' could have been used and since landlady did not start his business during the pendency of the release application of about 4 years, there was no genuine need and therefore, rejected the application. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Appellate Court has committed patent error of law in suggesting that if the business was not started from the 'living room' situated on the ground floor for about 4 years, it would lead to the conclusion that the need did not exist. It is then urged that the Appellate Court cannot force the landlady to adjust her living according to it. 8. The Appellate Court though found that the husband of the landlady could engage himself in any business but it went on to hold that the business can be carried out from the living room on the ground floor which is adjacent to the disputed shop. Though it found that the living room was behind a Varandah inside the building, it held that the Varandah can be used for piling up his material. The specific case set up by the landlady and accepted by the Prescribed Authority was that the living room was being used for entertaining relatives and friends who cannot be entertained and kept in an interior room. A photograph of the disputed premises, which was filed before the Court below is also available on record, it shows that the living room cannot be utilized as commercial or business room whereas the disputed shop was abutting the street. The Appellate Court has erroneously held that if the husband of the landlady did not start his business for about four years during the pendency of the release application it would be deemed that his need was not genuine and bona fide. The Appellate Court has erroneously held that if the husband of the landlady did not start his business for about four years during the pendency of the release application it would be deemed that his need was not genuine and bona fide. The need was set up not only for the electrical shop but also to take out contracts for providing light arrangement in marriages and parties which require huge investment and until and unless place for proper shop was available the landlady was not required to go ahead with his investment. In any event, it is not for the Court or the tenant to suggest as to how the landlady should go around organizing his business. 9. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the appellate order dated 4.9.1999 is hereby quashed and that of the Prescribed Authority is restored. 10. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.