JUDGMENT ; Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment and order dated 11.12.2012, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 156 of 2006, whereby the appeal filed by the original landlord Hazi Wali Mohammad was allowed, releasing the shop, in question, in favour of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Rent Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground that shop, in question, is required by the landlord to establish his unemployed sons therein, directing the tenant/petitioner, herein, to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the shop, in question, to the landlord within thirty days from the date of judgment. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that landlord Hazi Wali Mohammad has preferred PA Case No. 69 of 2005, Hazi Wali Mohammad Vs. Rais Ahmad, in the Court of Prescribed Authority/1st Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Rent Act No. 13 of 1972, seeking release of the shop, in question, in favour of the landlord to establish his three unemployed sons therein, with the contention that landlord/ applicant himself was running Dhaba in Shop No. 24/25 Nayanagar, Gandhi Road, Dehradun; applicant is landlord and owner of shop, in question, which is in the tenancy of the OP No. 1/ 2 petitioner, herein; landlord has four major sons namely Abdul Malik, Abdul Khalid, Abdul Raziq and Abdul Sadiq; Abdul Raziq was running Dhaba in the Shop No. 22, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, while his three other sons namely Abdul Malik, Abdul Khalid and Abdul Sadiq are major and unemployed, therefore, his all three unemployed sons namely Abdul Malik, Abdul Khalid and Abdul Sadiq would establish their blacksmith/welding business in the shop, in question, after getting it vacated from the tenant, so that all the three unemployed sons may earn their independent livelihood. 3. Release application was hotly contested by the tenant/petitioner, herein, stating therein that Abdul Malik one major son of the applicant/landlord is not an unemployed youth as he is running his independent business in Shop No. 23, Gandhi Road, Dehradun as allottee from Nagar Nigam. It was further contended that the landlord had absolutely no need to establish his other two sons Abdul Khalid and Abdul Sadiq in the shop in question. 4. It was further contended that the landlord had absolutely no need to establish his other two sons Abdul Khalid and Abdul Sadiq in the shop in question. 4. Release application, so moved, was initially dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. However, appeal filed by the landlord was allowed by the impugned judgment/order. Feeling aggrieved, tenant/petitioner, herein, has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner and Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have carefully perused the record. 6. Undisputedly, during the pendency of this petition, original landlord Hazi Wali Mohammad had expired and after his death tenant/petitioner has substituted his widow Smt. Feroza Begam and one son Shri Abdul Sadiq as legal heirs of the original landlord. 7. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner, has vehemently argued that as per the contents of the release application, original landlord had four sons namely Abdul Malik, Abdul Khalid, Abdul Raziq and Abdul Sadiq. Further contends that as per paragraph No. 8 of the release application, Abdul Raziq one son of the landlord was not unemployed youth as he was running his independent Dhaba business in Shop No. 22. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the tenant petitioner, further contends that undisputedly, another son of the landlord Abdul Khalid also expired during the pendency of the release application and therefore, his need has vanished. According to Mr. Piyush Garg, now, this Court has to see, as to whether, shop in question, is required for the alleged bona fide need of Abdul Malik and Abdul Sadiq. Mr. Piyush Garg, further contends that Abdul Malik is gainfully employed in Shop No. 23 Gandhi Road, Dehradun as allottee of Nagar Nigam and Abdul Sadiq may start his alleged business of welding and blacksmith in a shop which has fallen vacant due to death of original landlord, father of Abdul Sadiq. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondent, herein, contends that Abdul Malik is not in possession of Shop No. 23, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, as stated by Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner. He further contends that Mr. Deepak Kumar Agarwal has filed his own affidavit before the Prescribed Authority, specifically stating therein that Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondent, herein, contends that Abdul Malik is not in possession of Shop No. 23, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, as stated by Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner. He further contends that Mr. Deepak Kumar Agarwal has filed his own affidavit before the Prescribed Authority, specifically stating therein that Mr. Deepak Kumar Agarwal is in actual possession of entire area of Shop No.23 Gandhi Road Dehradun; Abdul Malik, son of the original landlord had never been in possession of any part of the Shop No. 23, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. According to Mr. Neeraj Garg, if, Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal is in possession of all the three portions of Shop No. 23, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, then possession of Mr. Abdul Malik cannot be deemed by any imagination over any part of the Shop No. 23, as stated by Mr. Piyush Garg. Further contends that even after the death of Abdul Khalid, Abdul Malik and Abdul Sadiq are still unemployed and shop, in question, is required for their livelihood. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, appearing for the respondents further contends that widow of deceased-landlord has every right to continue Dhaba business of his deceased husband. She cannot be compelled to sit idle and wholly depends on her sons. According to Mr. Neeraj Garg, Dhaba business left by original landlord shall be managed and looked after by his widow Smt. Feroza Begam. Further contends that undisputedly, as on day two sons of deceased original landlord namely Abdul Malik and Abdul Sadiq are unemployed youth. Therefore, they still have every right to establish themselves in the shop, in question by starting blacksmith/welding business therein. 9. On being asked repeatedly, Mr. Piyush Garg, leaned counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioner, herein, could not point out if Mr. Deepak Kumar Agarwal is running his independent business in all the portions of Shop No. 23, as to how, he would demonstrate that Shri Abdul Malik is in possession of any part of the Shop No. 23 as allottee of Nagar Nigam. He could not point out any material to suggest that Shri Abdul Malik is in possession of any part of the Shop No. 23. 10. Initially release of the shop in question was sought for the bona fide need of three sons of the original landlord namely Abdul Malik, Abdul Khalid, Abdul Sadiq. He could not point out any material to suggest that Shri Abdul Malik is in possession of any part of the Shop No. 23. 10. Initially release of the shop in question was sought for the bona fide need of three sons of the original landlord namely Abdul Malik, Abdul Khalid, Abdul Sadiq. Abdul Khalid has expired during the pendency of release application. Therefore, this Court has to examine as to whether shop in question is required to start, establish and run blacksmith/welding business by two unemployed sons of the original landlord namely Abdul Malik and Abdul Sadiq. 11. As observed hereinbefore, Abdul Malik is not in occupation of Shop No. 23, Gandhi Road, Dehradun as allottee of Nagar Nigam as Shop No. 23 is in actual physical possession of Deepak Kumar Agarwal. No major son of the landlord can be asked to accommodate himself in the family business of his father i.e. Dhaba left by his father on account of his death in view of the fact that Smt. Firoza Begam, widow of original landlord and mother of Abdul Malik and Abdul Sadiq has every preferential right to run Dhaba left by her deceased husband. 12. In my opinion, every unemployed youth has every moral and fundamental right to earn his independent livelihood. Since, Abdul Malik and Abdul Sadiq have every reasonable desire to start their independent blacksmith/welding business, therefore, their need, on the face of it, is bona fide and pressing. 13. In the present case, learned Appellate Court has returned specific finding of fact in favour of the landlord after discussing entire material available on the record. 14. While exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Court below, even if, two views are possible; view taken by the Court below should be allowed to prevail, unless, of course, finding of fact so recorded by the court below is found to be perverse or it is pointed out that any important piece of evidence is left to be considered by the Court below, which could have resulted into different conclusion. 15. In the present case, findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court seems to be perfectly sound, reasonable and based upon material available on the record. 16. 15. In the present case, findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court seems to be perfectly sound, reasonable and based upon material available on the record. 16. In my considered opinion, even if it is presumed that after the death of original landlord, his Dhaba business may be looked after by his one son out of the two unemployed sons, however, fact remains that another son shall still be unemployed and to establish that unemployed youth, son of the landlord, shop is required bonafidely. 17. Since landlord has every right to establish his own unemployed sons in the shop, in question, therefore, in the event of declining to release the shop, landlord would suffer more and greater hardship. 18. Consequently, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.