JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, none appears for the contesting respondent event in the revised list. 2. The respondent landlady filed an application for release under Section 21(1) (a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 inter alia with the allegation that she purchased the disputed accommodation from the previous owner where the petitioner was a tenant of a shop at Rs.80/- per month. The petitioner was earlier operating a floor mill and due to vibration, the shop is in a dilapidated condition which is required by her to settle her unemployed son Shams Arif who has completed his B.Sc. decree in 1999 and despite several efforts could not find any job. The petitioner tenant contested the said application inter alia with the allegation that now he is doing a general merchandise business from the disputed shop which is the sole livelihood for his family and the landlord have a huge shopping complex where his son could be settled and in fact the son is engaged in private tuition and is earning and therefore there is no need and in case the application is allowed, the petitioner would suffer greater hardship. 3. After exchange of pleadings, the Prescribed Authority rejected the release application vide order dated 20th of January 2004. The resultant appeal has been allowed by the impugned order. 4. The basic argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the landlord had become the owner of shop no.132/2 (new no.172), Hingan Katra, Jhansi and therefore even there was any need, her son could be settled in the said shop and the appellate court was not justified in holding otherwise. 5. It is apparent from the record that during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed additional evidence in the nature of an alleged partition decree rendered in Suit No.63 of 1984 to show that the landlady was provided the aforesaid shop in a family settlement amongst her brothers and it was stated in the affidavit that the said shop was vacant. In rebuttal the landlord filed certificate of the Nagar Palika, assessment register etc. to show that Shamsher Khan, the grand father was the landlord and the premises was in occupation of a tenant namely Ashok Kumar. In rebuttal the landlord filed certificate of the Nagar Palika, assessment register etc. to show that Shamsher Khan, the grand father was the landlord and the premises was in occupation of a tenant namely Ashok Kumar. Thus, relying upon the said evidence, it held that neither the landlady was the owner of the said premises nor it was vacant. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence has urged that in view of the partition decree, the respondent had become its owner and therefore the premises was available. Assuming that in the partition decree, the disputed shop was allotted in the share of the respondent but there is nothing on record to show that the partition actually took place and from the other evidence on record, it was established that Shamsher Khan, the grand father was the landlord and in any event the shop was in possession of a tenant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that after the decision of the appeal he had filed a review application to show that Ashok Kumar, the alleged tenant had left the premises long ago and the revisional court was not justified in rejecting the review application. 8. The Court below has rejected the review application with the finding that during pendency of the appeal or during arguments, no evidence was brought on record that Ashok Kumar had vacated the premises. This fact is not denied. It needs no reiteration that new evidence or cause cannot be a ground for review. Even otherwise, during pendency of the writ petition, the tenant had brought on record a certificate to show that Ashok Kumar was still in occupation of the said shop between the years 2000-08. Therefore, this argument also cannot be accepted. 9. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.