Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— 1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.2.1989 passed by the Special Judge/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Control Appeal No. 197 of 1995 whereby the judgment and order dated 30.8.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P. A. Case No. 1 of 1984 was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are as follows; 3. The petitioner is the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute along with Pucca Chabutra. The petitioner filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") on the ground that at the time when the shop in dispute was let out to the Respondent No. 2 he was only 27 years of age and he used to sell utensils as a hawker without any requirement of a fixed shop. 4. As a hawker he used to go from door to door to sell the utensils. However, since the petitioner was suffering from appendicitis, he was operated upon and was advised to do only light work and not to carry any load especially while walking. As a result of which, the petitioner became incapable to carry on his business by hawking and therefore required the shop in dispute for carrying on business from the fixed place. It was further pleaded in the release application that his family consists of self, wife and four children and has to support his entire family from his utensils business. It was also stated that the father of the petitioner is a handicapped person aged about 70 years. His father has been assisting his younger brother in the shop, who is carrying on his independent business. The petitioner is living separately and he has no concern with the business of his father/brother. 5. It was pleaded in the release application that the Respondent No. 2 was carrying on a business of cloth on a small scale from the shop in dispute. It was further pleaded that the Respondent No. 2 has two sons and since both of them are employed, the Respondent No. 2 is not at all likely to suffer any hardship in case the disputed premises is vacated by him. It was further pleaded that the Respondent No. 2 has two sons and since both of them are employed, the Respondent No. 2 is not at all likely to suffer any hardship in case the disputed premises is vacated by him. It was specifically mentioned in the said application that the petitioner will utilize the shop in dispute after its vacation by the Respondent No. 2 only for the purpose of establishing himself in business. 6. The Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement denying and disputing the allegations made in the release application. It was stated in the written statement that the the petitioner, his brothers and father were living together and the petitioner who is already in possession of a shop is carrying on business of utensils with the help of his brother. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was not operated upon for appendicitis. 7. In support of his contention the petitioner filed his own affidavit stating that he was operated upon for appendicitis by one Dr. Krishan Lal Dutta and the marks of which are still visibile on his belly which can be examined by any doctor. The said marks were also noticed by the prescribed authority. 8. It was further stated by him in the said affidavit that the petitioner has no fixed place/shop for his business and therefore he requires the shop in dispute as he was incapable of carrying on his business by hawking. The petitioner also filed the affidavit of his brother Sharif Ahmad wherein he denied that the petitioner of doing business of utensils from his shop. It was further stated by him that after the operation, his brother (the petitioner) became incapable to carry on business by hawking on cycle. It was also denied that they were all living jointly. 9. In support of his contention, the petitioner filed a certificate issued by Dr. K. L. Datta certifying that the petitioner was operated by him for appendicitis on 9th September 1983. The petitioner also filed affidavit of some other witness in support of his case. 10. The prescribed authority after careful appreciation of entire evidence available on record vide its judgment and order dated 30.8.1985 allowed the release application of the petitioner and also held that the need of the petitioner to be genuine and bonafide and found the balance of comparative hardship in favour of the petitioner. 11. 10. The prescribed authority after careful appreciation of entire evidence available on record vide its judgment and order dated 30.8.1985 allowed the release application of the petitioner and also held that the need of the petitioner to be genuine and bonafide and found the balance of comparative hardship in favour of the petitioner. 11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30.8.1995, the Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act"). The said appeal was allowed. Hence, the present writ petition. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the appellate court on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship is based on a complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter, and has not considered the evidence available on record in right perspective. He further submitted that the certificate issued by Dr. K. L. Datta certifying that the petitioner was operated upon for appendicitis by him on 9th September 1983 was not considered by the appellate court. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order passed by the appellate court and stated that the order has been passed in accordance with law and the appellate court below was fully justified in reversing the finding recorded by the trial court since it was not in accordance with law. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. The prescribed authority after perusal of pleadings and evidence available on record held that the need of the landlord to be bonafide and genuine, and also found the comparative hardship in favour of the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority further held that the petitioner did not have any shop from which he can carry on his business and also placed reliance on the certificate issued by Dr. K. L. Datta that the petitioner was operated by him for appendicitis on 9th September 1983. However, the appellate court has not considered the certificate issued by Dr. K. L. Datta that the petitioner was operated by him for appendicitis on 9th September 1983 and recorded a perverse finding that no such medical certificate was filed by the petitioner. K. L. Datta that the petitioner was operated by him for appendicitis on 9th September 1983. However, the appellate court has not considered the certificate issued by Dr. K. L. Datta that the petitioner was operated by him for appendicitis on 9th September 1983 and recorded a perverse finding that no such medical certificate was filed by the petitioner. Moreso, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was carrying on any independent business from any shop. Besides this, the affidavit of the petitioner's brother has not been considered by the appellate court which clearly indicates that the petitioner was not in any way involved in the business carried by him and that the petitioner was not in possession of any shop. 16. There is ample evidence on record which indicates that the petitioner was earlier a hawker and carrying on the business of selling utensils from door to door but on account of appendicitis operation, he became incapable to carry on the said business by hawking. It is also notable that the the doctor had advised the petitioner to do light work and not carry any load especially while walking or riding cycle. In these circumstances, the petitioner discontinued the business by hawking and filed a release application for the release of the disputed shop. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was having any shop in his possession to carry on his independent business. 17. The prescribed authority has very specifically recorded a finding that the petitioner after being operated for appendicitis was unable to carry on the business by hawking on public street and also that the petitioner does not have any other source of income. It further held that the petitioner had to support his entire family. There are a number of vacant shops in the vicinity which can be taken on rent by the Respondent No. 2. The Prescribed Authority had recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the petitioner to be bonafide and genuine and found the comparative hardship in his favour. The said findings are based on the evidence available on record. The Prescribed Authority has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The finding recorded by the the Prescribed Authority are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The said findings are based on the evidence available on record. The Prescribed Authority has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The finding recorded by the the Prescribed Authority are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The Prescribed Authority has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the petitioner to be bonafide and genuine. 18. The reasons assigned by the appellate court are superficial and it has applied a very casual approach and has committed manifest error of law and procedural illegality. The impugned order passed by the appellate court is based on complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter. The appellate court had drawn inferences only on the basis of speculation and the impugned order looked from any angle cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The findings recorded by the prescribed authority with regard to bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the petitioner are upheld. 19. It is true that in writ jurisdiction this Court would be reluctant to interfere in the finding of fact given by the Appellate court but if the Appellate Court has arrived at such a finding on wrong legal assumption or approach the said finding would not be conclusive finding of fact. In the instant case, the Appellate Court has overlooked several facts and had drawn a conclusion which is not at all supported by any evidence on record and the said conclusion would not , therefore, amount to a finding of fact but in fact it would be an illegality in its approach. Thus, the findings of the appellate court appear to be manifestly unjust and erroneous. 20. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 21. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.2.1989 passed by the Special Judge/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Rent Control Appeal No. 197 of 1995 is set aside and the order dated 30.8.1985 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P. A. Case No. 1 of 1984 releasing the disputed shop is upheld. _____________