JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11 upholding the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the prescribed authority in Case No. 119 of 1985 whereby the application filed under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (In short "the Act") was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; 3. An application under Section 21 of the Act was filed by the landlords-respondents No. 1 to 6 on the ground that the disputed shop is required by them for the purpose of starting a business in Banarsi Sarees; - a portion of the said shop was required for the business of printing press which is being run at present in the courtyard on the ground floor of the disputed house. During the pendency of the case, need of their sons Prasun Agarwal and Saurav Agarwal was also set up for carrying on the business for their livelihood who had become major and have already completed their studies. 4. The petitioner filed his written statement stating that the need of the landlord is neither genuine nor bonafide. After exchange of pleadings and evidence, the application filed under Section 21 of the Act was allowed by the prescribed authority. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the need of the landlords is neither bonafide nor genuine, and the comparative hardship also tilts in their favour. It was further submitted that one shop was released in favour of Ram Das (father of the respondent No. 1) in the year 1984, however, the same was rented out by him in the very same year. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 3 can carry on business of Sarees from the first and second floor of the disputed house. It was further submitted that the court below has erred in holding that the petitioner is using the disputed premises merely for the purpose of head office. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 3 can carry on business of Sarees from the first and second floor of the disputed house. It was further submitted that the court below has erred in holding that the petitioner is using the disputed premises merely for the purpose of head office. It was further submitted that all the members in the landlords family are engaged in different commercial activities and they do not require any additional accommodation for carrying on the business. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlords have submitted that the court below has upheld the need of the landlord as genuine and bonafide and found the comparative hardship in favour of the landlords. The said findings are based on the record and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot re-evaluate the evidence. It was further submitted that the petitioner is hardly carrying on any business from the disputed shop and in fact, his sons are already established in Bombay where they are carrying on the business of gold ornaments and jewellery and using the disputed shop as head office. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 8. The landlords filed an application under Section 21 of the Act in the year 1985 on the following grounds; 1. For the purpose of starting a business of Banarsi Sarees 2.Additional accommodation is required by the respondent No. 3 for carrying on a business of printing press, which is being presently run in the the courtyard at the ground floor of the house. 3. During the pendency of the case, the landlords-respondents also established the need of their sons Prasun Agarwal and Saurav Agarwal for carrying on their business for their livelihood who had become major and have completed their studies. 9. It has been stated by the landlords that there are 14 members in the family and there is no other shop to carry on the business. The first, second and third floor of the house are being used for residential purposes. The landlord-respondent No. 1 has acquired expertise in business of Banarsi Sarees by serving in different establishment and therefore, intends to establish himself in the business of Banarsi Sarees in the disputed shop for the upliftment of his family and also because this was his ancestral family business. The landlord-respondent No. 1 has acquired expertise in business of Banarsi Sarees by serving in different establishment and therefore, intends to establish himself in the business of Banarsi Sarees in the disputed shop for the upliftment of his family and also because this was his ancestral family business. It was further alleged that the disputed shop is situated in an area where business of Banarsi Saree is prevalent. It was further alleged that the landlord-respondent No. 3, Dinkar is carrying on business of printing press in the name and style of M/s Sri Ram Printing Press in the courtyard of the disputed shop, but the space available is too narrow and inadequate for the business of printing press, as such, he also intends to use a portion of the disputed shop for his business. It was further alleged that the petitioner had an alternative shop to run his business of gold ornaments and jewellery whereas the landlords have no other shop. Thus, according, to the landlords, their need is three fold viz. to carry on the business of Banarsi Sarees; to carry out the business of the printing press and to establish their two sons in the business who have become major and have completed their studies. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying on the business of gold ornaments and jewellery from the disputed shop. According to the petitioner, the landlord-respondent No. 1, Prabhakar is working at Rama Textiles and is getting a salary of Rs. 13,900/-, as such, he is already employed and does not require any commercial accommodation for carrying on business. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly untenable and unfounded. It has come on record that forefathers of the respondents were in the business of Banarsi Sarees and had build up a valuable goodwill but the business was closed due to financial problems. Landlord-respondent No. 1 has expertise in the business of Banarsi Sarees since he worked in an establishment dealing with this business, hence, the landlord-respondent No. 1, wants to establish the business of Banarsi Sarees. It is for the landlord to choose his profession or business and the tenant cannot compel or direct him to do a particular business or job. If the respondent No. 1 does not want to continue in a job where from he hardly earns Rs. It is for the landlord to choose his profession or business and the tenant cannot compel or direct him to do a particular business or job. If the respondent No. 1 does not want to continue in a job where from he hardly earns Rs. 14,000/-, he has every right to establish his own independent business. Therefore, the need set by the landlord-respondent No. 1 for establishing a business of Banarsi Sarees is bonafide and genuine. 11. The Commissioner's report which was submitted after the spot inspection is also on record. It clearly suggests that there is a paucity of accommodation in the courtyard for carrying on the business of printing press. Therefore, the need for additional accommodation for the purpose of running a printing press cannot be said to be an eye-wash. 12. The sons of the landlords namely Saurav Agarwal and Prasun Agarwal were admittedly minor one/two years of age when the application under section 21 of the Act was filed in the year 1985 and it has been alleged that both of them have become major and have completed their studies, and want to establish themselves in the business. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner. He has not been able to show that both the sons of the landlords are gainfully employed anywhere or carrying on any business, therefore the need for establishing their two sons is also bonafide and genuine. 13. Thus, the courts below on the basis of the material available on record have rightly come to the conclusion that the need set up by the landlords is genuine and bonafide and the said finding of facts has been recorded on the basis of the evidence on record and hence cannot be said to be either perverse or erroneous. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehementally argued that in the year 1984 one shop in the disputed premises was released in favour of Ram Das (father of the respondents No. 1 to 5) but the same was rented out by him in the very same year, as such, the need of the landlords cannot be said to be bonafide. The record of the case shows that the said shop is situated in house No. 21/29 A was being owned by the father of the landlords, Ram Das, and not by the landlords. The record of the case shows that the said shop is situated in house No. 21/29 A was being owned by the father of the landlords, Ram Das, and not by the landlords. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the landlords that the alleged shop was released in the year 1984 in favour of Ram Das and was not rented out to any third person. Ram Das along with one Vishwanath started the business of selling sweets from the said shop. Vishwanath was simply helping out Ram Das, in carrying out business, as such, it cannot be said that it was rented out. Besides that, litigation with regard to the said shop/house No. 21/29 A, is pending before this Court. Further, when the application under section 21 of the Act was filed in the year 1985, the said shop was already occupied, as such, the landlords could not have laid claim over the said shop. This apart, the need of the landlord is multi-fold, now the landlord respondent No. 1 requires the shop for carrying on the business of Sarees, respondent No. 3 requires additional accommodation to carry on his business of the printing press and they also require accommodation for establishing their two sons in business. 15. It is also noteworthy that the present application under Section 21 of the Act was filed around 25 years back i.e. 1985, since thereafter no shop has been released in favour of the landlords. 16. It has also been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlords can also carry on the business from the first, second or third floor of the house since in the said area, the other dealers are also carrying on their business from the different floors of their houses. This argument is wholly misconceived and untenable. It has not been denied that the landlords have a large family of 14 members who are residing in the said house in the first, second and third floor, and they do not have any other alternative residential accommodation, as such, they cannot be asked to vacate their residential house for the purposes of carrying on the business. 17. It has not been denied that the landlords have a large family of 14 members who are residing in the said house in the first, second and third floor, and they do not have any other alternative residential accommodation, as such, they cannot be asked to vacate their residential house for the purposes of carrying on the business. 17. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is carrying on the business of gold ornaments and jewellery from the disputed shop since last several decades and has earned good will and in case he is evicted, he will suffer irreparable loss. The trial court while referring to the Paper No. 256 Ga, found that the income from the petitioner's shop was shown at Rs. 36,907/- in the assessment year 2007-08 and in the year 2004-05, total income was shown as only Rs. 4387/-. This fact was borne out from the own document filed by the petitioner before the trial court, as such, it is evident that there would hardly be any loss of goodwill. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that two of his sons are already carrying on business of gold ornaments and jewellery in Bombay and the present shop is being run by the petitioner in partnership with his daughter-in-law. Thus, the sons of the petitioner are already carrying on their business in gold ornaments and jewellery in Bomaby and record also reveals that the disputed shop is also being used mainly as a head office. The court below has also recorded a finding, that the petitioner has got an alternative accommodation in Ravindra Puri, Varanasi where he can conveniently shift his business. The court below has also recorded a finding of fact that for the last 25 years (after the application was filed in the year 1985) the petitioner has not made any effort to search for any alternative accommodation. This court cannot ignore the fact that the application was filed in the year 1985, almost 25 years have passed and the children of the landlords have become adults, the need of the family must have multiplied but still the landlords have not been able to get the possession of the disputed shop for carrying on their business. This court cannot ignore the fact that the application was filed in the year 1985, almost 25 years have passed and the children of the landlords have become adults, the need of the family must have multiplied but still the landlords have not been able to get the possession of the disputed shop for carrying on their business. On the other hand, admittedly the two sons of the petitioner are already carrying on their business of gold ornaments and jewellery in Bombay and are fully established, and the present disputed shop occupied by the petitioner is hardly generating any profit as is evident from the evidence available on record. 18. The court below have recorded a concurrent findings of fact that the need set up by the landlords is bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship tilts in their favour. The courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while allowing the release application of the landlord. The petitioner has not adduced any cogent evidence to show that he would suffer greater hardship if he is evicted. The findings recorded by the court below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The said findings are finding of facts and are based on record, as such, no adverse inference can be drawn by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, I do not finding any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in the writ petition. 21. In the result, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.