Devendra Pratap Singh, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the peti­tioner and Shri P.K. Srivastava for the respondent caveator, 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated 25.5.2009 and 6.4.2010 by which the release application of the respondent land­lord has been allowed by both the Courts below. 3. It appears that the respondent landlord preferred a Rent Case No. 14 of 2007 for releasing the disputed accommodation consisting of a room, varanda etc. in House No. 83A/18, Juhi Khurd, Kanpur which was in the tenancy of the petitioner a1 Rs. 20/ - per month on the ground of personal need as he had a large family and was forced to live in the second floor with only two rooms with other amenities and due to shortage of accommodation his son had to live in a rented accommodation. The petitioner tenant contested the application that married daughters were staying at their in laws and the landlord had got vacated certain other accommodation and therefore, had sufficient space for the entire family. After the parties had led their evidence, the Court below after considering the extent of accommodation available to the landlord and the family members and after recording a finding that due to paucity of space his son was forced to reside with his family in a tenanted accommodation, al­lowed the release application. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the landlord had got vacated certain other accommodation which was available to him and there­fore, the finding of both the Courts below is vitiated. As noted by the Appellate Court itself that except for bald assertion, no evidence was brought forward to substantiate the plea inasmuch as even the detail of the tenant etc. was not given. This finding of fact has not been shown to be vitiated. 5- It is then urged that the rent of the tenanted accommodation had been enhanced and therefore, the petitioner cannot be evicted. Enhancement of rent and personal need are two different issues and cannot be clubbed together. In the present case the Court has come to a definite conclusion that the need was bona fide and genuine and that the tenant during the pendency of the release appli­cation made absolutely no effort to search out alternative accommodation, it allowed the application. Enhancement of rent and personal need are two different issues and cannot be clubbed together. In the present case the Court has come to a definite conclusion that the need was bona fide and genuine and that the tenant during the pendency of the release appli­cation made absolutely no effort to search out alternative accommodation, it allowed the application. A finding has also been recorded that the landlord has another accommodation available and which finding has not been shown to be perverse. 6. No other point has been urged, 7. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. Petition Rejected.