Sudhir Agarwal,J. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2, i.e., landlords. 2. The respondents-landlords, i.e., Rahul Kumar Jain and Anshul Kumar Jain, 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 release of accommodation in question which is a shop under the tenancy of petitioner on the ground that both of them have completed their education and now want to settle themselves in business, which they can do in the shop in question and, therefore, it should be released in their favour. 3. The Prescribed Authority rejected application on the ground that landlords have failed to prove genuine bona fide need and comparative hardship also does not lie with them. In arriving this finding the Prescribed Authority found that shop in question though was purchased by respondents no. 1 and 2 from its earlier owner, Chiman Lal on 10.04.2001 but since the earlier owner had already initiated certain proceedings for ejectment of petitioner-tenant from the shop in dispute but had failed, hence the present attempt by new owners is nothing but a planned attempt to get the accommodation vacated. 4. The aforesaid findings of Prescribed Authority have been reversed by Lower Appellate Court since it could not be shown that respondents no. 1 and 2 have any relation with erstwhile owner of shop in dispute. Having purchased shop in a bona fide manner on 10.04.2001, the question of need of new owners is an independent aspect,. Hence the Trial Court definitely committed a patent error in looking into the previous history of litigation between erstwhile owner and petitioner-tenant. In my view the Lower Appellate Court has rightly reversed finding of Trial Court on this aspect since the approach of Trial Court was wholly illegal and impermissible in law. 5. The second aspect on which the Trial Court has non-suited respondents-landlords and held that their need is not shown to be genuine, is that, their father have two other shops. However, the Lower Appellate Court has found that both shops of father of respondents no. 1 and 2 were already occupied and were not available in vacant condition. 5. The second aspect on which the Trial Court has non-suited respondents-landlords and held that their need is not shown to be genuine, is that, their father have two other shops. However, the Lower Appellate Court has found that both shops of father of respondents no. 1 and 2 were already occupied and were not available in vacant condition. Therefore, even this aspect was wholly irrelevant to non-suit respondents-landlords in order to determine genuine personal need set up by them. Having said so, the Lower Appellate Court has gone in detail to consider the question of genuinity of personal need of respondents no. 1 and 2 and question of comparative hardship. It has also found that petitioner-tenant's wife had a shop in her possession which is available for petitioner to continue his business. This fact is also not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. 6. In view thereof, in my view, since Lower Appellate Court has recorded findings of fact which have not been shown perverse or contrary to record and it has rightly reversed the otherwise findings recorded by Trial Court, which were based on misconceived assumptions, hence no interference is called for at this end. 7. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. _________________