Sudhir Agarwal,J.:- Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajeev Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. The petitioner Munni Lal filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), which was registered as Case No.42/70 of 1990 on the ground that his son Vinod Kumar is unemployed and require to be settled in a business, therefore, shop in question, which is under tenancy of respondent, be released. The application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 16.5.1996 recording a finding that admittedly, son of landlord, Munni Lal, is unemployed and, therefore, need set up is genuine and bona fide, which reads as under: ^^blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ dk yM+dk Lohd`r :i ls csjkstxkj gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mldks O;kikj pykus ds fy, nqdku dh vko';drk cksukQkbM gSA** "Apart from this, the Applicant's son is admittedly unemployed. In such a circumstance, he is in bonafide need of a shop to run business." (English Translation by the Court) 3. In respect of comparative hardship also, he has found that same lie in favour of landlord. But, on appeal, preferred by respondent- tenant, Special Judge vide judgment dated 5.8.2008, has allowed the same by observing that now Munni Lal is very old and Vinod Kumar also must be in the age group of 60-61 and he is running business in a big shop of cloth belong to Munni Lal. In order to record this finding that shop of Munni Lal is being run by Vinod Kumar, he has not referred to any evidence at all. 4. Despite repeated query, learned counsel appearing for respondent-tenant also could not tell as to what such evidence was on record which proved that Vinod Kumar was actually running business in the shop belonging to Munni Lal. In fact, respondent-tenant has not even pleaded this fact and what he has said is that Munni Lal runs a big shop of cloth in which his son Vinod Kumar is also sitting. In fact, respondent-tenant has not even pleaded this fact and what he has said is that Munni Lal runs a big shop of cloth in which his son Vinod Kumar is also sitting. This is evident from the order of Prescribed Authority, which reads as under: ^^bl laca/k esa foi{kh dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS vkSj 'kiFk i= Hkh fn;k x;k gS fd fouksn dqekj vius firk ds lkFk cSBdj O;kikj djrk gSA fouksn dqekj izkFkhZ dk ,d ek= iq= gS ysfdu fouksn dqekj dh vyx ls dksbZ nqdku gS ;k og vyx ls O;olk; djrk gS] ;g foi{kh us Li"V ugha fd;k gSA blls ;gh Li"V gksrk gS fd fouksn dqekj bl le; csjkstxkj gSA** "In this connection, it has been stated and even an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent that Vinod Kumar runs business together with his father. Vinod Kumar is the Applicant's only son but the respondent has not made it clear whether Vinod Kumar separately owns any shop or whether he separately runs a business. This only shows that Vinod Kumar is unemployed at present." (English Translation by the Court) 5. The Trial Court found that sitting with business of father does not amount to run independent business and an adult son, and if needs be settled in an independent business, that cannot be said to be a bogus claim of landlord. The Lower Appellate Court, in order to observe that shop of Munni Lal is being run by Vinod Kumar, has not at all referred to any evidence and this finding is, therefore, patently without any evidence. That being so, there is nothing, which may show that need set up by landlord was not genuine and bona fide and infact findings of fact have been recorded by Prescribed Authority. 6. Since findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court is not based on any evidence and, therefore, judgment of Lower Appellate Court cannot sustain. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment of Lower Appellate Court dated 05.08.2008 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by Judge Small Cause Court/Special Judge, Hamirpur is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree dated 16.05.1996 passed by Prescribed Authority is hereby restored and confirmed. _________