Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kaushlendra Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated dated 31.5.1985 passed by the Appellate Authority/ Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Rent Appeal No. 43 of 1983.

3. The facts, in brief, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the controversy relates to shop situate at Chowk Bazar Nanpara, Bahraich which is bounded as under :

East - Shop Muzaffar Ali

West- Shop Ram Kumar alias Puttan Pandey (deceased) which is in possession of his son Babu Lal Pandey.

North - road side market

South- Aahata of Devi Prasad Vaish.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said shop was under the tanancy of one Sri Abdul Salam at the monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. On 2.3.1982, Lalji/landlord moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 for release of shop in question on the ground that same is needed to establish the business which is to be run by him with the help of his grandson, who is unemployed to earn his livelihood.

5. Accordingly a P.A. Case No. 5 of 1982 registered before the Prescribed Authority Bahraich. In the said matter, on 20.11.1982 tenant filed written statement and after exchange of pleadings as well as evidence between the parties, the prescribed authority vide order dated 23.4.1983 allowed the application under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of shop in question.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, tenant filed an appeal ( Rent Appeal No. 43 of 1983 ), allowed vide order dated 31.5.1985 passed by appellate authority/ Additional District Judge, Bahraich, hence the present writ petition filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Sri Anu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned appellate order dated 31.5.1985 passed by the appellate authority thereby allowing the appeal filed by the tenant, is totally incorrect and wrong and the findings given by appellate Court that need of land lord is neither genuine nor bona fide in comparison to land lord is totally incorrect and passed on wrong facts as the findings recorded by appellate Court that Sri Atul Kumar has not yet left his studies. So in the circumstances the idea to start a new business by the landlord at this advanced age can be termed as a wishful thinking on his part thus the need of the landlord is not genuine. From the evidence on record, it is clearly established that grandson of the landlord/Lalji left his studies in order to do business alongwith his grandfather to earn livelihood for the said purpose shop in question is needed by landlord to start business with the help his grandson. Further, landlord is a best Judge to choose accommodation in order to do his business and in this regard neither any Authority under the Rent Control Act nor tenant can dictate the term in respect to carry out the business by landlord as such the findings given by the appellate Court on the point in issue is contrary to law liable to be set-aside.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the findings given by the appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the tenant that in the year 1976 a suit for ejectment against the tenant filed in which a compromise taken place between the parties thereby the rent enhanced from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 90/- per month and the same is paid from the year 1976, cannot be a bar in moving an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of shop in question, as such the said findings given by the appellate authority is illegal in view of the provisions as provided under Rule 18 (2) of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972 which is quoted as under :

“18(2) Where an application of a landlord against a tenant under Section 21 for the r