JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, for petitioner. Respondents are represented by Sri P.K. Shukla, Advocate. 2. Petitioner's application for eviction of respondent-tenants from shop in dispute and release of the same under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment dated 15.10.2009 dismissing petitioner's P.A. Case No. 3 of 2004 and the said judgment and order has been confirmed by Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 28.9.2012 rejecting petitioner's appeal. 3. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that petitioner has already enough alternative space for satisfying his need and, therefore, his claim for shop in question is neither bona fide nor genuine and question of hardship has also been decided against him. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show any perversity in the findings recorded by Courts below. Appellate Court in its judgment has recorded following findings which were also recorded by Prescribed Authority which could not be shown incorrect or perverse to this Court also: ---Hindi--- "Applicant's son PW-2 Zia-ul-Rehman has stated there to be eleven shops earlier in his Rehman Building and there to be an exit from the house in the second shop, where gas agency related business used to be carried on earlier. He has himself admitted being a cricket coach. Accompanying the List being Paper No. 54 B, a certified copy of 55 B sale document has been submitted by the opposite party perusing which it transpires that the shops were sold by the applicant in course of litigation. Photographs of the sold shops filed vide List 55 C have been admitted by PW-2 to be the photographs of his building. By way of affidavit, applicant has himself admitted having sold the shop after appointment of Ameen Commission in the case. This goes to create doubts over the landlord being in the bona fide need of getting the building vacated. Vide list 43 C, a certified copy of the order dated 19.05.2008 passed in PA No. 18/05 Mohd. Fazar-ul-Rehman Vs. Keshav Kumar has been presented perusing which it is clear that PA No. 18/2005 under Act 13 of 1972 was presented by applicant for eviction on the ground of need which (shop) was sold to Omkar Rastogi in course of litigation. Fazar-ul-Rehman Vs. Keshav Kumar has been presented perusing which it is clear that PA No. 18/2005 under Act 13 of 1972 was presented by applicant for eviction on the ground of need which (shop) was sold to Omkar Rastogi in course of litigation. From the documentary and oral evidences presented, it is clear that shops were sold between the years 2004 and 2005 and during the pendency of the suit and the applicant has stated to have sold the said shops after being vexed with the tenant. From this fact it is clear that the landlord's bona fide need of getting the building vacated is not for the business of his son, rather due to the fact that he wants to get the building vacated after being vexed with rents and the tenants. It has also been inferred on this point by the court below that the son of applicant-land lord is a cricket coach but if he wishes to run business then Shop No.2, stated to be exit of the house, is vacant. It has not been clarified by the applicant as to wherefrom was the exit of the house at the time of carrying on the gas agency related business at Shop No. 2 and as to what are circumstances necessitating the use of Shop No. 2 as the exit. In these circumstances, the need of the landlord can not be stated to be bona fide." 5. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for petitioner could not explain his stand about the facts recorded again him in the aforesaid findings. It is, thus, clearly a misconceived writ petition forcing an unnecessary avoidable litigation upon respondent-tenants up to this Court and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost. 6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with cost quantified to Rs. 20,000/-