JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-The dispute in this appeal relates to a shop under the tenancy of the respondent - Baij Nath. The petitioner - landlady had purchased the shop in question in the year 1977 from one Smt. Kanti Devi. It measures 2 x 5.3 meters. The petitioner moved a petition under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act ) on the ground of bonafide need to settle her major and married son in life, who was to start the business of electrical goods and utensils in the shop in question. The petition was contested unsuccessfully by the respondent-Baij Nath. The appeal preferred by the tenant-respondent was, however, allowed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court was dismissed upholding the order of reversal passed in appeal, observing that under the writ jurisdiction findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are manifestly unjust. Hence, this appeal impugning the order of the High Court.

2. The appellant-landlady, as noted earlier, had purchased the disputed shop in August, 1977, when her children were not grown up. Her eldest son Prem Prakash was later married and had a