Sudhir Agarwal, J.— 1. Heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Km. Rishu Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 2. The landlord filed an 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") seeking eviction of petitioners-tenants from the shop in dispute alleging that the same is required for his personal need. The application was registered as PA Case No. 04 of 1993. The application of landlord was rejected by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 19.08.1994, whereagainst landlord filed Rent Appeal No. 19 of 1994. The appeal was allowed by Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2001 and while setting aside the order of Prescribed Authority, release application of landlord was allowed. The petitioners-tenants filed Writ Petition No. 8700 of 2001, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 17.05.2001 and appellate judgment dated 17.02.2001 was set aside and matter was remanded to Appellate Court to decide appeal afresh. Whereafter, it appears that, landlord moved an amendment application to bring a subsequent event before the court that shop in which landlord's father was doing work of welding, was demolished by concerned authorities on 22.05.2000 in an encroachment drive. The said application was allowed and amendment was permitted to be incorporated in the application giving time to petitioners-tenants to file additional written statement and also their evidence in support of their objections, if any. The aforesaid amendment was permitted by Appellate Court vide its order dated 22.05.2003. The additional evidence etc. was over and the appeal then was presented for hearing. 3. Thereafter on 18.12.2004 the petitioners-tenants moved an application intending to bring on record certain documents without explaining as to why those documents were not filed by them earlier. The Appellate Court vide order dated 06.01.2005 rejected said application on the ground that the same appears to have been filed to delay the proceedings and without explaining any reason for filing those documents at a belated stage when appeal was already fixed for hearing on several dates earlier. The court also observed that at appellate stage also entire additional evidence etc. was over and petitioners-tenants did not explain why documents they proposed to file alongwith application dated 18.12.2004 could not have been filed earlier. Thereafter the Appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 01.03.2005. 4. The court also observed that at appellate stage also entire additional evidence etc. was over and petitioners-tenants did not explain why documents they proposed to file alongwith application dated 18.12.2004 could not have been filed earlier. Thereafter the Appellate Court proceeded to decide the appeal vide impugned judgment dated 01.03.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that in the application dated 18.12.2004 there is no averment or explanation as to why those documents could not be adduced earlier by petitioners-tenants when additional evidence etc. was already recorded by Appellate Court. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 06.01.2005. 5. So far as the order dated 22.05.2003 is concerned, it is not in dispute that respondent-landlord intended to bring on record subsequent events occurred on 22.05.2000, which could have material bearing on the matter. That being so, the order dated 22.05.2003, permitting amendment, cannot be faulted. 6. Now coming to the impugned appellate judgment and order dated 01.03.2005, I find that allegation of alternative accommodation available to petitioners stood rejected for the reason that landlord's father's shop have already been demolished on 22.05.2000 and this fact has been found proved by Appellate Court and this finding has not been proved perverse or contrary to record. Further, the Appellate Court has found that the shop alleged to have been vacated by another tenant, Azim, the case set up by petitioners-tenants is that the same was vacated just an year before the date of release application filed by landlord while the affidavit dated 01.08.1994 supporting claim of petitioners filed by Sri Azim stated that the shop was vacated by him about one and half years back. The Appellate Court found contradiction in the stand of petitioners-tenants and that of Azim. Besides, it also found that from the record of another case, i.e., P.A. Case No. 131 of 1993 it is evident that aforesaid shop was long back let out to one, Mohd. Irshad. Even these findings of fact have not been shown perverse or contrary to record to this Court warranting any interference. 7. Besides, it also found that from the record of another case, i.e., P.A. Case No. 131 of 1993 it is evident that aforesaid shop was long back let out to one, Mohd. Irshad. Even these findings of fact have not been shown perverse or contrary to record to this Court warranting any interference. 7. On the question of genuinity and bona fide of personal need as well as comparative hardship, the Appellate Court has recorded findings of facts looking into the subsequent events also and those findings having not been shown perverse or manifestly erroneous, I find no reason to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________