Krishna Murari, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Contesting respondents are represented, but neither any counter affidavit has been filed nor anyone has appeared even in the revised call. 2. Petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Act seeking release of the shop in dispute setting up personal need to settle his younger son, Rakesh Kumar in business. Application was filed on the allegation that respondent no. 1 is a tenant of the disputed shop on monthly rent of Rs.45/- and the shop was required to settle his younger son, who was unemployed, in the business of general merchandise. It was further pleaded that he earns a sum of Rs.200/- per month as hawker of newspapers. The application was contested by the tenant on the ground that release application has been filed on frivolous ground as Rakesh Kumar is not unemployed, but he is earning near about Rs.6000/- per month from the news agency as hawker. It was also pleaded that the tenant is running a shop of radio mechanic and has no other source of income and if he is evicted, he will have no means of livelihood. Evidence was led by both the parties and the Prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 03.05.1999 held that the need of landlord was bona fide and genuine and he was suffering greater hardship and, accordingly, allowed the release application. Tenant-respondent went up in appeal. Lower appellate court vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2006 set aside the finding recorded by the trial court, allowed the appeal and rejected the release application. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court after analysis of the entire evidence brought on record by the parties, recorded findings of bona fide and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord, but the same has wrongly and illegally been reversed by the lower appellate court without considering the evidence. It has further been urged that finding of the lower appellate court is on the basis of a certificate that son of the landlord was paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- for part time service for the period of 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001. He has further submitted that the finding that Rakesh Kumar was permanent employee of the said firm, is based on surmises and conjunctures not supported by any evidence. 4. He has further submitted that the finding that Rakesh Kumar was permanent employee of the said firm, is based on surmises and conjunctures not supported by any evidence. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Trial court after analysing the evidence, has recorded a finding that Rakesh Kumar, son of the landlord was carrying on temporary work of distributing newspaper as a hawker on meagre payment of Rs.200/- per month. He being unemployed without any source of income, his need was bona fide. He has further recorded a finding that there was no other alternative available with the landlord and, as such, the comparative hardship of landlord was greater. Before the lower appellate court, a certificate was filed by the landlord in the form of the additional evidence which goes to show that Rakesh Kumar was paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- for the period of 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 for working on part time basis in a private firm M/s. Chandra Bhan Suraj Bhan. 6. Relying upon the said certificate, the lower appellate court held that the son of the landlord was not unemployed. A further finding has been recorded that he was a permanent employee of the private firm, inasmuch as part time service can only be rendered by one, who is a permanent employee. The said finding recorded by the lower appellate court is imaginary and based on surmises and conjunctures. Any employee of an establishment being paid for part time services cannot be termed as a regular employee. The certificate filed before the lower appellate court clearly goes to show that payment has been made for part time services. The presumption of the lower appellate court that Rakesh Kumar was a regular employee of any other post and for rendering part time services, the said payment was made, is without any basis and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the certificate goes to show that payment was made to him for the period of 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001 and there was no other material on record to demonstrate that even such part time employment was available with him in 1996 when the release application was filed. 7. Furthermore, the certificate goes to show that payment was made to him for the period of 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001 and there was no other material on record to demonstrate that even such part time employment was available with him in 1996 when the release application was filed. 7. The finding of the lower appellate court that the fact was concealed by the landlord also cannot be sustained because there was no such evidence available that he was in part time employment at the time of filing of the release application or during the pendency of the proceedings before the Prescribed authority. This finding is also based on imagination of the lower appellate court. 8. A temporary or a part time employment obtained during the pendency of the proceedings, will not in any manner extinguish the bona fide need. A payment of Rs.18,000/- for a part time employment for a period of one year only works out to be Rs.1500/- per month. Such a meagre payment in a temporary or part time service cannot tantamount to be permanent settlement of livelihood and life so as to negate the bona fide need of the landlord. In so far as the comparative hardship is concerned, there is no material on record to indicate that the landlord has any other alternative available with him to establish his son. Further the tenant also failed to establish that during the pendency of the proceedings, any effort was made by him to search any alternative accommodation. 9. Both the factors tilt the balance of comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. The finding of the lower appellate court being based on misinterpretation of evidence and not supported by any evidence on record is, thus, not liable to be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2006 passed by the lower appellate court is hereby quashed and that of the Prescribed authority is affirmed. 11. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________