JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - An application was made under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Kent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the petitioner for release of building by its landlords who are respondents in this petition on the ground that they needed it for their own use and occupation. The application was contested by the petitioner and was allowed by the Prescribed Authority whose order has been upheld in appeal by the District Judge. The District Judge, has recorded a categorical finding that the need of the landlords was bona fides and that it was more pressing then that of the tenant. He has recorded a further finding that great hardship would be caused to the landlords it the premises in question is not released in their favour while not much hardship will be caused to the tenant in case he is asked to vacate the house in question. This finding is based on the circumstances that six members of the landlords family were living in one single room whereas the tenant had an alternative accommodation in his possession. Nothing has been brought to my notice which may justify interference with the aforesaid finding under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. It was then urged by counsel for the petitioner that the present application was barred by principle of res-judicata, inasmuch as an application by the landlords had been made under section 3 of U.P. Act No III of 1947 in the year 1964 which bad been dismissed. The plea was raised before the District Judge also but was repelled and in my opinion rightly in 1964 whin the application was made it was found that there were only three members in the landlords family Smt. Badrunisa and her two sons Masoor Ahmed and Saud Ahmed. Neither of the two sons of Smt. Badrunnisa had been married at that stage. In the present application it was stated that Masood Ahmed bad since been married and had three children. It was further stated that Saud Ahmed was grown up and it was not possible to marry him for want of accommodation. Further the earlier application was dismissed mainly on the ground that the landlords were in occupation of not only a portion of house No. 21/41 but also a portion of house No. 21/55. It was further stated that Saud Ahmed was grown up and it was not possible to marry him for want of accommodation. Further the earlier application was dismissed mainly on the ground that the landlords were in occupation of not only a portion of house No. 21/41 but also a portion of house No. 21/55. In the application made under section 21, it was specifically stated by the respondents that they were occupying a portion of house No. 21/55 a licensees that the licence had been revoked and they had to vacate the said accommodation about a year ago. The application under section 21 was thus made on entirely different facts and circumstances and the bar of res judicata was not applicable. 3. In the result, I find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.