JUDGMENT Devendra Pratap Singh,J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent caveator. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 22.7.2008 and 11.6.2010 by which both the courts below have allowed the release application of the respondent landlord. 3. The respondent landlord filed release application no. 71 of 2005 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 inter alia with the allegation that the family of the landlord consists of 14 persons including married couples and college going children and were forced to make do with 7 rooms out of which two were in the occupation of his brother and there was no place for studies for the children or for his daughters who were running coaching classes and also for the chamber of his lawyer son etc. while the petitioners were tenant in the adjoining house of the respondent landlord and they have other accommodation available where they can shift without any difficulty as they have a very small family. It was also disclosed that earlier also he had filed a release application in 1997 which was dismissed but the circumstances changed, the family increased and the other building available lies in a dilapidated condition. 4. The petitioner tenant contested the application firstly urging that the second release application for the same need was not maintainable and the landlord has two other houses no. 50 and 51 which can be utilized for him as he already has 7 rooms etc. and other accommodation was also available. It was also asserted that he has no other place to shift and in case the application is allowed, he will suffer greater hardship. 5. Both the courts below after considering the evidence on record and taking into account the earlier release application, recorded categorical findings of fact that the looking to the size of the landlord's family including the fact that three couples and young girls needed different rooms, held the need to be genuine and bona fide and further, apart from the fact that other accommodation was available to the tenant but yet no effort made to search out alternative accommodation, therefore, allowed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that both the courts below have erred in holding that house nos. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that both the courts below have erred in holding that house nos. 50 and 51 were not available for the use of the landlord despite the fact that in the earlier proceedings it was held so. 7. Both the courts below have taken into consideration the changed circumstances and after relying upon concrete evidence including the Commission's report found that the house nos. 50 and 51 were not available for use of the landlord. In fact an offer was made before the trial court to the petitioner tenant for giving him on rent either of the two houses no. 50 and 51 in exchange of the disputed accommodation but neither the petitioners denied that one was in a dilapidated condition and the other was used as a garage nor accepted the offer. This finding of the trial court has not been challenged either during arguments or in the pleadings of the writ petition. Therefore, the argument is misconceived and is rejected. 8. No other point has been urged. 9. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.