JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the caveator and also perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 10th of May 1999 and 27th of March 2010 by which both the courts below have allowed the release application of the respondent landlord. 3. The respondent landlords filed a release application no.54 of 1997 before the prescribed authority inter alia with the allegation that the petitioner is a tenant of the disputed accommodation of which she is the owner and landlord; that her husband Dr. P.C.Chatterji was Scientist employed in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and was in occupation of a service quarter but he has since retired and therefore had to vacate it and they want to settle in Kanpur where they have no other suitable accommodation except the disputed premises while the petitioner tenants had house no. 3A/157 Azad Nagar in Kanpur where they can shift. The petitioner tenants contested the application inter alia with the allegations that the landlords have bought a house at Hyderabad and both their sons are employed outside Kanpur and there was no genuine need. It was further asserted that the house no. 3A/57 Azadnagar was commercial. It was also asserted that the landlords had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the tenants and a suit for specific performance was pending, therefore, relationship ceased to exist. 4. The trial court after going through the evidence has found the need to be genuine and bonafide and further finding comparative hardship in favour of the landlords allowed the release application and which order has been affirmed in appeal. 5. It is urged that once the agreement to sell had been executed and substantial amount of money had been paid to the landlord, the petitioner no longer remained a tenant and in support thereof, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal [2002 Supreme Court and Full Bench Rent Cases 101]. 6. There can be no exception to the ratio laid down in Om Prakash Gupta's case (supra), but the facts and nature of the alleged agreement of sale are totally different. The trial court has examined the agreement of sale and found that in view of the condition nos. 6. There can be no exception to the ratio laid down in Om Prakash Gupta's case (supra), but the facts and nature of the alleged agreement of sale are totally different. The trial court has examined the agreement of sale and found that in view of the condition nos. 6 and 8, no right passed on to the tenant and his status together with the possession would remain as a tenant. Though conveniently the petitioners have not filed the document before this Court, but there is no challenge to that finding in the writ petition. The court also found that the agreement was also cancelled because the petitioners did not get the sale deed executed within the time specified therein. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. 7. It is then urged that the landlords had at least two other premises being house nos. 23/78 Patkar and 28/74 Peelkhana, therefore, neither the need was genuine nor bonafide. 8. A perusal of the judgments show that both the courts below have considered this aspect and found that both the premises were in occupation of tenants. This finding has not been shown to be vitiated. 9. No other point has been urged. 10. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.