Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri Pankanj Agarwal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The petitioner filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") in respect of accommodation in question, i.e., House No. 54 situated at Mohalla Zindiyan, District Bulandshahar wherein respondents are tenants. The application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 25.06.1985 holding the need of petitioner to be genuine and bona fide and also the issue of hardship in their favour. 3. In the appeal preferred by respondents-tenants they filed an additional document to show that petitioner-landlord's husband or son has purchased a big Kothi in about 1200 square yards near stadium which satisfy her need and, therefore, release of accommodation should not be allowed. The Appellate Court in the judgment dated 13.09.2004 has simply referred to aforesaid factum that during pendency of appeal the evidence placed on record that landlady has purchased a big Kothi and then it has said that she has not given any explanation in this regard, meaning thereby her need has disappeared. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the replication dated 28.10.1991 filed before Appellate Court, where in para 4 it has said as under: @ Hindi @ "4. That this statement of the applicant that respondent or her husband or her son Nizamuddin might have purchased any kothi (house) measuring 1200 square yards near the stadium during the aforesaid appeal is wrong. In fact, this property, constructed on 250 or 300 square yards, is a factory, which Merajuddin and Naeemuddin, sons of the respondent have purchased with their persona funds for business purposes; and respondent or her son Nizammuddin has no concern with this factory. Merajuddin and Naeemuddin are in possession over this factory and they reside separately from respondent." (English translation by the Court) 5. Merajuddin and Naeemuddin are in possession over this factory and they reside separately from respondent." (English translation by the Court) 5. The aforesaid averment that alleged Kothi is not a residential building but is is a factory which has been purchased by two sons of petitioner-landlady for their own independent business, has not at all been looked into by Appellate Court in the impugned judgment and on the contrary it has recorded a perverse finding that landlady has not given any explanation about the alleged purchase of Kothi, as claimed by tenants. 6. In view of the fact that there is a specific averment made by petitioner-landlady that the alleged building is not a residential Kothi but a factory and that too purchased by her sons for their own business and this fact having not been considered by Appellate Court, the judgment impugned in this writ petition cannot sustain. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.09.2004 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to Appellate Court to decide it afresh in the light of discussions made above, expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to other business of this Court. _____________