JUDGMENT Devendra Pratap Singh,J. - Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This petition is directed against an appellate order dated 13.5.2010. 4. It appears that the respondent-landlord preferred a release application no.19 of 1996 for release of the disputed accommodation which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority but in appeal, the same has been allowed. 5. The dispute relates to house no. 53, Purani Mandi, Firozabad, which admittedly belongs to the respondent-landlord where the petitioner is a tenant @ Rs.450/- per month since long. The landlord filed a release application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) against the petitioner seeking its release inter-alia with the allegation that he and his family originally belong to Firozabad where they have several business of medicine and chemicals and they have also started a construction business as "Ratan Vihar Commercial and Residential Centre" and to look after this business he and his sons had to travel from Agra to Firozabad, which was not only problematic but also compromised their security. It was further asserted that when Firozabad was a small tehsil, they had shifted to Agra as there was hardly any development work and had let out the disputed building to the petitioner who was using it as his office for his business of M/s. Hindustan Scientific Glass Works, but it has now closed down but they are holding it only to extract money while the landlords do not have any suitable accommodation to shift to Firozabad except the disputed premises from where they can conveniently run their business as now Firozabad is a district and large development works have started. 6. The petitioner contested the application inter-alia contending that they are using the premises as their office for several manufacturing concerns such as Siraj Glass Works, Durga Glass Works, Saraswati Glass Works apart from Hindustan Scientific Glass works etc. and that the landlord has two other accommodation available at Firozabad which they can utilize, though they have a large house at Agra from where they are conveniently managing their business in Firozabad which is only a short distance and therefore had no genuine or bonafide need. 7. and that the landlord has two other accommodation available at Firozabad which they can utilize, though they have a large house at Agra from where they are conveniently managing their business in Firozabad which is only a short distance and therefore had no genuine or bonafide need. 7. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims whereupon, the Prescribed Authority, on the finding that tenants were utilizing the disputed premises for their office and that the landlord could use other premises available to them, therefore, it was only a wish but not genuine need, rejected the application. The Appellate court, upon reconsideration of the evidence held otherwise and allowed it. 8. It is urged that the petitioner was running his office from the disputed accommodation and the finding to the contrary is vitiated. It is also urged that the petitioner had pointed out at least three alternative accommodation one at Agra and two at Firozabad itself but the appellate court has ignored it. 9. The appellate court has considered all the evidence on record and on the basis of unimpeachable evidence of uninterested witnesses has found that no office is running from the disputed premises and the landlord does not have any vacant residential accommodation available though looking to the spread of his business interests in the city, the need is genuine and bonafide. The appellate court is justified in holding that the tenant cannot force the landlord to come daily to Firozabad from Agra to look after his business interests or to build or take a house in his commercial housing venture. In any view, as rightly found by the appellate court that, both the parties being financially sound having several business interests in the city, the tenant cannot latch on to the building for times immemorial. In the changed scenario, the landlord has every right of entry in his house to better manage his business interests in the city. The release application is pending since 1996 and the tenant has made no effort to search out another accommodation in one decade and a half. Thus, taking a holistic view, the findings of fact returned by the court below need no interference under discretionary jurisdiction. 10. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.