The High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities below regarding the landlord's bona fide need and comparative hardship unless the findings are perverse or grossly wrong.

( 1 ) THIS is tenants petition for quashing the orders dated 13. 11. 1997 and dated 21. 4. 1998 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively whereby the release application moved by the landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. (hereinafter referred to as the act) has been allowed.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a shop situate in Gandhi Bazar. Kasba Baghpat (now a separate district), whose boundaries were given in the release application. The landlord applied for the release of the disputed shop with the allegations that in order to extend his business and to augment his income for meeting out the requirements of his family and his children, the necessity of setting up business of ready-made garments has arisen because the Ice Factory owned by him was not yielding sufficient income on account of the same being a seasonal business in summer season only and since he has no other suitable accommodation with him, his need for the disputed shop was most genuine, bona fide and pressing. It was further pleaded that the tenant-petitioner was in no need of the shop in question. The landlords claim was contested by the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that Naresh Chand Jain, the elder brother of the landlord was a bachelor and living jointly with the landlord and they were having huge income to the tune of Rs. 5,000 per day from a Cinema Hall known as "monica Theatre ; that from the ice Factory the earning of the landlord was about Rs. 9,00,000 per annum : that he has also established "mayur Oil Mill" near the bus stand which was being run in the names of Smt. Rekha Jain the wife of the landlord, Smt. Manju Jain wife of the brother of the landlord and sanjay Kumar Jain and the share of landlords wife from the said business comes to about Rs. 12. 00,000 per annum. According to the petitioner, the total income of the landlord was about Rs. 28. 00. 000 per annum. The petitioner further pleaded that the landlord has available with him a vacant shop at Meerut Baghpat Road which he could use if in fact he wanted to set up the desired business of readymade garments. Petitioners further case was that he has been running the business of grocery in the disputed shop for the last 25 years in the name of M/s. Shankar Lal shri Chand and he did not have any other shop to shift the said business. The landlord refuted the tenants allegations and it was stated by him that he was having no share in the income from monica Theatre as the same had fallen in the exclusive share of Naresh Chand Jain in a family partition and the said brother was living separately ; that his total income including his wifes income is Rs. 1. 25 lacs per annum only whereas the expenses which he was incurring on the education of his children were move than Rs, 1 lac per annum. With regard to the availability of shop near Baghpat Meerut Road, it was stated by the landlord that it was not a shop but only a godown and being situated far away from the market area and township was not suitable to the landlord for the proposed business.

( 3 ) THE Prescribed Authority by the order dated 13. 11. 1997 allowed the landlords release application holding that the landlords need for the disputed shop was genuine and bona fide and that he would suffer greater hardship than the tenant in case his application for release was rejected. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act has also been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by the order dated 21. 4. 1998 and the findings of fact recorded by the prescribed Authority, on both the relevant issues have been affirmed.

( 4 ) SINCE counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties counsel, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

( 5 ) SRI. S. K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of fact of the authorities below as perverse, arbitrary and based on non-consideration of important aspects of the