JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant and Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the order dated 30.05.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Atrauli, Aligarh in U.P.U.B. Case No. 1 of 1999, Om Prakash and Another v. Hari Shankar (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition) and the judgment and order dated 7.11.2017 passed by Upper District Judge, Court No. 2, Aligarh in U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Hari Shankar v. Om Prakash and Others, Annexure No. 20 to the writ petition)." Facts:- 3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that there were three shops owned by the applicant No. 1 Sri Om Prakash in town area Chharra, Pargana Gangiri, Tehsil Atrauli, District Aligarh. He had three sons namely Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari, Surendra Kumar Maheshwari and Devendra Kumar Maheshwari. An U.P.U.B. Case No. 01 of 1999, Om Prakash and Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Hari Shankar was filed by him under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona-fide need for starting of business by his grandson Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari son of the applicant No. 2. The aforesaid Sri Om Prakash filed two separate cases for eviction of tenants from the remaining two shops. He executed a Will dated 02.08.2000. However, by sale deed dated 25.09.2004, he sold the aforesaid two shops to existing tenants against whom he had filed eviction suits. With respect to the disputed shop, he continued to contest the release application. During pendency of the aforesaid U.P.U.B. Case, the aforesaid original owner and landlord Sri Om Prakash died. He was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives including Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari for whose bona-fide need the aforesaid Om Prakash and his son Narendra Maheshwari have filed the U.P.U.B. Case No. 01 of 1999. This case was decreed by judgment dated 30.05.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Atarauli, Aligarh. 4. He was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives including Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari for whose bona-fide need the aforesaid Om Prakash and his son Narendra Maheshwari have filed the U.P.U.B. Case No. 01 of 1999. This case was decreed by judgment dated 30.05.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Atarauli, Aligarh. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment dated 30.05.2005, the defendant-petitioner/ tenant filed a U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 7 of 2005, Hari Shankar v. Sri Om Prakash and Others, which was allowed by the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Aligarh by judgment dated 11.04.2008. Aggrieved with this judgment, the aforesaid Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and Another, filed Writ-A No. 24994 of 2008, Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and Another v. Hari Shankar, which was allowed by order dated 03.09.2014 and the matter was remanded for decision in the appeal afresh, as under:- "Counter affidavit filed is taken on record. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Preet Pal Singh, counsel for the respondents. One Om Prakash along with his son Narendra Kumar Maheshwari applied for release of the shop in dispute situate at Dando Road, Qasba Chharra, Pargana Gangeeri, Tehsil Atrauli, district Aligarh under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for bona- fide need of Vivek Kumar Maheshwari grand son of Om Prakash and son of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari on the ground that he has completed M.Sc. and is unemployed; he wants to start the business of oil paint and chemical from the shop in dispute and he has no other alternate accommodation available. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2000. The Prescribed Authority held that the release application filed by the above persons is maintainable and the need set up by them is bona-fide and comparative hardship is also in their favour. The respondent-tenant preferred appeal. During pendency of appeal Om Prakash died and on the basis of his Will, Vivek Kumar Maheshwari inherited the shop in dispute and, as such, he was also added as a party to the release proceedings. The appellate court by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2008 has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2008 has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority. The main ground on which the appeal has been allowed is that on the death of Om Prakash the premises from where he was doing business is available to Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and he can start his business from the said shop. Om Prakash and Narendra Kumar Maheshwari were doing business together. On the death of Om Prakash the said business has been taken over by Narendra Kumar and, as such the shop from which Om Prakash was doing business is not available to Vivek Kumar Maheshwari. Vivek Kumar Maheshwari alone has inherited the shop in dispute on the basis of the Will of late Om Prakash. The other properties of Om Prakash have been inherited by his sons and not Vivek Kumar Maheshwari. In view of the above, Vivek Kumar Maheshwari as the sole and exclusive owner of the shop in dispute is entitle to get it vacated for his own need. Any other accommodation which was available to Om Prakash would not be available to him. All these aspects have not been dealt with by the appellate court. The appellate court has misconstrued the need of Vivek Kumar Maheshwari. It incorrectly held that the accommodation from which Om Prakash was doing business would be available to him. This is in complete disregard to the fact that it was not inherited by him and at the same time his father Narendra Kumar Maheshwari alone had taken over the business which was being run by his father om Prakash. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment and order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the appellate court is quashed and the matter is remanded to it for decision of the appeal afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." 5. Against the aforesaid order of the writ court, the defendant-petitioner/tenant as well as plaintiff-respondent/landlord filed S.L.P. No. 424 of 2015, Hari Shankar v. Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and Others and S.L.P. No. 5176 of 2015, Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and Another v. Hari Shankar and Others. By order dated 19.01.2015, the S.L.P. filed by the defendant-petitioner/tenant was dismissed. Against the aforesaid order of the writ court, the defendant-petitioner/tenant as well as plaintiff-respondent/landlord filed S.L.P. No. 424 of 2015, Hari Shankar v. Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and Others and S.L.P. No. 5176 of 2015, Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and Another v. Hari Shankar and Others. By order dated 19.01.2015, the S.L.P. filed by the defendant-petitioner/tenant was dismissed. By Order dated 27.03.2015, the S.L.P. Filed by the plaintiff-respondent/landlord namely Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and another was also dismissed. However, a direction was issued to the First Appellate Court to dispose of the pending appeal pursuant to the impugned order of remand, within a period of three months. 6. Pursuant to the order of the writ court dated 03.09.2014 and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.03.2015, the Appellate Court decided afresh the U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 07 of 2005, Hari Shankar v. Om Prakash and Others by the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2017 whereby the appeal of the defendant-petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. Aggrieved with this judgment of the Appellate Court, the defendant-petitioner/tenant has filed the present writ petition. Submissions on behalf of the defendant-petitioner:- 7. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate for the defendant-petitioner/tenant submits as under:- (i) There is contradiction in release application and different affidavits with respect to the share in partnership firm M/s. Laksmi Trading Company, as evident from paragraph-1 of the release application, paragraphs-14 and 15 of the written statement, paragraphs-27, 29 and 30 to 34 of the affidavit dated 16.11.2002 of the applicant No. 1 namely Sri Om Prakash, paragraph-26 of the affidavit of Sri Narendra Kumar, applicant No. 2 dated 09.11.2001 in U.P.U.B. Case and paragraph-20 of another affidavit of Sri Narendra Kumar dated 04.10.1999 and paragraph-9 of the affidavit of Sri Vivek Kumar dated 04.10.1999. (ii) There was no bona-fide need since subsequently, by two separate sale deeds dated 25.09.2004, the applicant late Sri Om Prakash himself had sold two shops to the respective tenants. Thus, if the need set up by the aforesaid Sri Om Prakash was bona-fide, then he should not have sold the aforesaid two shops. 8. Today, Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for defendant-petitioner/tenant submits that the father of Vivek Kumar Maheshwari had filed a counter affidavit dated 15.12.2007. In paragraph-6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, he stated that presently he is doing agricultural work and not looking after the business of M/s. Lakshmi Trading Company. 8. Today, Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for defendant-petitioner/tenant submits that the father of Vivek Kumar Maheshwari had filed a counter affidavit dated 15.12.2007. In paragraph-6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, he stated that presently he is doing agricultural work and not looking after the business of M/s. Lakshmi Trading Company. He also refers to the affidavits of witnesses namely Sri Pramod Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar, Raj Bahadur and Manoj Saxena all dated 25.08.2003 and submits that in paragraph-6 of these affidavits, it was stated that Vivek Kumar Maheshwari has married but he is totally unemployed. Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari sits in Lakshmi Trading Company which mainly carries on business of foodgrains on commission agency. On the strength of these affidavits and the counter affidavit, Sri Sharma submits that after the death of Om Prakash Maheshwari (grandfather of Vivek Kumar Maheshwari), Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari cannot be said to have inherited the business of his father i.e. Sri Om Prakash Maheshwari and, therefore, that shop could have been made available to the plaintiff-respondent/ landlord namely Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari. Submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents:- 9. Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior advocate submits that the fact that Vivek Kumar Maheshwari has married and is totally unemployed, could not be disputed by the defendant-petitioner/tenant. After the death of Sri Om Prakash Maheshwari, Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari has become absolute owner and landlord of the disputed shop for whose benefit the release application was filed. Now this shop is the only shop owned by Vivek Kumar Maheshwari, therefore, his bona-fide need cannot be disputed nor it could be disproved by the defendant-petitioner/tenant by any evidence on record. He submits that it is settled law that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to him should be utilized by him for the purposes of his business. In support of his submissions, he relied upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Bajaj and Another v. Vinod Ahuja, 2014 (2) ARC 265 (Para-14) and Faruk Ilaht Tamboli and Another v. B.S. Shankarrao Kokate (D) by LRs. and Others, 2016 (1) ARCT 1 (Paras-9 and 13). Discussion and Findings:- 10. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the present writ petition. 11. and Others, 2016 (1) ARCT 1 (Paras-9 and 13). Discussion and Findings:- 10. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the present writ petition. 11. There is no dispute that release application was filed by Sri Om Prakash Maheshwari setting up the bona-fide need for his grandson Vivek Kumar Maheshwari for starting business by him. Vivek Kumar Maheshwari has been married. During pendency of the UPUB Appeal No. 7 of 2005, the grandfather Sri Om Prakash Maheshwari died. Before his death, he had executed a Will dated 02.08.2000. On the basis of this Will, Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari (the plaintiff-respondent No. 1/5) became the absolute owner and landlord of the disputed shop. He is contesting the matter for his bona-fide need. The entire submissions made on behalf of the defendant-petitioner relates to the disputed question of fact with regard to looking after the business of Sri Om Prakash Maheshwari by his son Narendra Kumar Maheshwari which was being run under the name and style of M/s. Lakshmi Trading Company. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that there was any evidence to establish that either Vivek Kumar Maheshwari owns any other shop except the disputed shop for his business or that Shri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari is separately and independently running any business. The bona-fide need was established by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1/5, i.e. Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari. Under the circumstances, the findings recorded by the appellate court in the impugned judgment as well as the finding recorded by the trial court are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. Therefore, these findings cannot be interfered with in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Once the bona-fide need has been established by the landlord namely Sri Vivek Kumar Maheshwari and the comparative hardship is in his favour, the release of the disputed shop by the impugned judgments cannot be said to suffer from any manifest error of law. 12. In the case of Faruk Ilaht Tamboli and another (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it certainly cannot be the claim at the behest of a tenant, that the owner of a premises must continue in business with his parents or relations, assuming there was a joint business activity, to start with. 12. In the case of Faruk Ilaht Tamboli and another (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it certainly cannot be the claim at the behest of a tenant, that the owner of a premises must continue in business with his parents or relations, assuming there was a joint business activity, to start with. That is usual, and happens all the time when children come of age. And thereafter, they must have the choice to run their own life, by earning their own livelihood. The property owner has the right to use his property as he chooses, for running his business. There could be no irregularity if owner of the property chooses to use his property for running his business, independent of the business of other family members. In the case of Anil Bajaj and another v. Vinod Ahuja (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business. Even if the landlord is doing business from various other premises, it cannot foreclose his right to seek eviction from the tenanted premises so long as he intends to use the said tenanted premises for his own business. 13. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.