The main legal point established in the judgment is the practical approach to determining the landlord's bona fide requirement and the consideration of comparative hardship in eviction cases.

( 1 ) THE landlord has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 10th April, 1991 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant for setting aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was allowed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application dated 9th October, 1986 under section 21 (1) (a)of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "act) after retirement from government Service for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute stating that he bona fide required it for himself and his family members; that the shop measuring 13 9" x 8 was let out to the tenant about 20 years back when the applicant was in Government service in Defence Department and his sons were minors; that the applicant retired from service w. e. f. 1st August, 1985) that foe applicant had four grown-up sons; that the eldest sons Yogendra Kumar sharma was in service at Lucknow and was living separately; that the second son Ravindra Sharma had done his M. B. B. S. Examination and was about to complete his M. S. in General Surgery form S. N. Medical College, Agra and, therefore, required accommodation for consultation after obtaining his Masters degree; that the third son Tarlok Kumar Sharma had obtained M. A. degree in drawing and Painting from Agra College, Agra and had taken admission in ph. D. in Drawing and Painting; that the fourth son Gajendra Sharma was about 10 years and was studying in class 6th; that the applicant was getting meager pension of Rs. 449/- per month and, therefore, was finding it very difficult to maintain his family and even his third son Tarlok Kumar Sharma was not getting any service; that the applicant bona fide required the shop for carrying on the business of painting in which he was temporarily engaged from his residence; that he needed the shop to augment his income which was highly insufficient to cater to the needs of the family; that the tenants were rich persons and could take up any other shop in the newly constructed market where several shops were lying vacant; that the tenant also had accommodation available with him just opposite to the shop in dispute and that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application is rejected.

( 3 ) A written statement was filed by the tenant. It was stated that the applicant was doing painting work from his residence and his second son dr. Ravindra Sharma has his clinic in the another part of the same building and his third son Tarlok Kumar Sharma was employed in S. N. Medical College, agra where he was also doing his Ph. D. in Drawing and Painting. It was, therefore, stated that the shop was not required bona fide by the landlord and that even though the applicant did not require the shop yet comparative hardship was in favour of the tenant.

( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority by the order dated 18th July, 1989 allowed the application filed by the landlord and directed the tenant to handover possession of the shop to the landlord within three months. It was found that the applicant bona fide required the shop and that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application is rejected. The tenant filed an Appeal under section 22 of the Act which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 10th April, 1991 and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was set aside.

( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant and have perused the material available on record.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on proper appraisal of evidence the Prescribed Authority had recorded findings that the landlord bona fide required the shop and that the landlord was likely to suffer greater hardship in the event the application was rejected but the Appellate Court in an arbitrary and illegal manner has reversed these findings and rejected the applicatio