The expression 'bona fide required' under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, means genuinely, sincerely, i.e., in good faith in contradiction to mala fide. The requirement of an accommodation is not bona fide if it is sought for ulterior purposes on fanciful whim but once it is established that the landlord requires the accommodation for the purpose which he alleges and there is no ulterior motive to evict the tenant, the requirement should be treated as bona fide.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 13. 11. 1998 whereby the application flied by the landlord respondent No. 3 against the petitioner for release of the disputed shop has been allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20. 10. 1999 affirming the said order in appeal.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21 (1) (a) of u. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) on the allegation that he has to sons, namely. Mukesh Kumar and Atul Kumar. His son Mukesh kumar is doing independent business. His younger son. Atul Kumar is unemployed and requires the shop to carry on independent business. The petitioner contested the said application. It was denied that Atul Kumar was unemployed and requires the disputed shop for carrying on business. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the need of respondent No. 3 to set up his son in business in the shop in question is bona fide and genuine and in case the application is rejected, he would suffer a greater hardship- The application was allowed. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority has dismissed it on 20. 10. 1999.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 3 is carrying on business and his son Atul Kumar is assisting him in the business and, therefore, the need of respondent No. 3 to establish his son cannot be treated as bona fide. The facts, as found by both the authorities, are that respondent No. 3 has a shop in Mohalla Sanwaldas. He is carrying on cloth business in the said shop. His elder son Mukesh Kumar is carrying on independent business and has a medical shop. His second son, Atul Kumar, passed B. Com examination. He is unemployed but as there is no other business he is assisting his father in the business.

( 4 ) THE petitioner suggested that Atul Kumar is carrying on lending business but he did not lead any cogent evidence to prove this fact. It was also suggested that he was carrying cloth and sarafa business but it was also not established. One of the arguments raised was that respondent no. 3 has a cane crusher in village Mandawali, Pargana Najibabad and his son Atul Kumar is looking after that crushing work. Respondent No. 3 filed a partnership deed which proved that there are four partners, namely. Shiv Charan Das, Satendra Kumar, Rajendra Kumar (respondent no. 3) and Virendra Kumar. This firm has cane crusher in the name of M/s. Agarwal Sugar factory. Respondent No. 3 is not exclusive owner of that factory. This work is done in partnership and there are other three partners. It was found that Atul Kumar has no right to carry on the said crushing business in his own right.

( 5 ) IT was further suggested that one Chandra Prakash was tenant and he vacated the accommodation in his tenancy and it was available to the respondent No. 3 but it was not established. It was further argued that one Yogendra Kumar Bishnoi was a tenant but the shop fell vacant. It has been found that it is not proved that there is any existing shop which can be occupied by Atul Kumar to carry on business. The petitioner further suggested some of the ancestral properties of respondent No. 3. Admittedly Suit No. 427 of 1982 for partition is pending. In absence of any evidence that there is any suitable shop in exclusive possession of respondent No. 3, it will not be available for Atul Kumar to carry on business. These are questions of fact which have been discussed by both the authorities and they have found that there is no vacant suitable accommodation to establish Atul Kumar in independent business.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that Atul Kumar is assisting his father in business and this has been established by producing the photographs and the Appellate Authority also found that he was found in the shop of his father. It is contended