JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Asif, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The dispute in this writ petition is regarding two shop in Rampur. The said shops are under the tenancy of the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs.30/- each and he is earning his livelihood by doing business form there. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 alleging themselves to be the owner and the landlord applied for the release of the said two shops under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for using the said shop as a garage on the allegation that respondent No.2 keeps visiting Rampur very often and while her stay there she faces difficulty in parking her cars for which she requires the two shops to used as a garage. 4. The courts below have allowed the release application of the respondents holding their need to be bona fide. 5. The argument is that respondent No.2 for whose need the shop were sought to be released resides permanently at Delhi and therefore, she does need any garage in Rampur for parking her cars. 6. In the release application it is admitted that respondent No.2 is residing in Sainik Farm, New Delhi. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the petition it has been stated that she often comes to Rampur and resides there for weeks and even months to look after her family matters. She enjoys a good social and financial status and travels to Rampur normally by car where she faces difficulty in parking the vehicles for want garage. She would utilize the shops as a garage. 7. In the release application the respondents nowhere pleaded as to how often respondent No.2 comes to Rampur from Delhi. It may be once in a month or once in a year or once in three or five years. All this has been left to one's own imagination. 8. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced to establish the frequenc of the visits of respondent No.2 to Rampur and about her stay there. 9. Thus, in the absence of any such pleadings and the evidence on record, the need of the respondent No.2 for the shop in dispute to be used as a garage for parking her cars is not only a mere desire but flimsy which cannot be termed as bona fide on her part. 9. Thus, in the absence of any such pleadings and the evidence on record, the need of the respondent No.2 for the shop in dispute to be used as a garage for parking her cars is not only a mere desire but flimsy which cannot be termed as bona fide on her part. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the findings of the court below that the need of the respondents for the shop in dispute is bona fide is not borne out from the record and is totally perverse based upon no pleadings and evidence. 11. Accordingly, impugned judgments and orders dated 17.1.2011 and 30.11.2011 cannot be sustained in law and are hereby quashed. 12. The writ petition is allowed but without costs.