JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the illegallity and invalidity of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Special/Additional District Judge, Kheri in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2007, Ram Narain and others v. Shatrohan Lal by which the application for release of the accommodation in question under the tenancy of the petitioner was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K.Rastogi submits that the petitioner is a tenant of one room accommodation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month only. He submits that the tenancy is continuing since 1962. The father of the petitioner was the tenant of the previous owner of the house. He further submits that the petitioner presently is a retired person and is getting pension amounting to Rs. 1600/- per month. In the said accommodation, he himself is living along with an adopted son, who is 18 years old. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite-party i.e. landlord has so many accommodations in the Town and is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of the property. As the landlord has a number of accommodations, so the accommodation in question for personal need is not required. 3. Learned counsel submits that the opposite-parties no. 2 and 3 (landlords) along with their family members live in a big house in the same Mohalla in a three storeyed building, which consists of shops and 4 rooms on ground floor, 4 rooms, one store in addition to amenities of first floor while 6 rooms and amenities on second floor in which the entire family has been residing comfortably and conveniently. The four rooms construction on 2nd floor has been raised after the year 1987. The father of the landlords had earlier moved an application on 2.9.1976 for eviction of the petitioner from the house in question which was dismissed on 20.10.1978. Thereafter within a period of six years Late Sri Murlidhar moved another application for release of the house in question on the ground of personal need vide Rent Control Case No. 8 of 1984 by which the Prescribed Authority released the accommodation. However, in Rent Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 1986 , the Additional District Judge, Kheri allowed the appeal vide its order dated 28.7.1987, as a result of which, the application for release of the accommodation was dismissed. However, in Rent Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 1986 , the Additional District Judge, Kheri allowed the appeal vide its order dated 28.7.1987, as a result of which, the application for release of the accommodation was dismissed. The landlords along with their sister Smt. Hind Kesari filed Writ Petition No. 6982 of 1987 (R/C) before this Hon'ble High Court challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court. The aforesaid writ petition was, however, dismissed in default on 26.10.1999. 4. The landlord thereafter applied for recall of the order dated 26.10.1999 before this Hon'ble Court which was pending on the date of moving of the second application for release of the accommodation in the instant case. He also submits that the landlord has moved an application on 16.10.2001 for release of the same accommodation during the pendency of the writ petition as the same amounting pendency of the release application. The petitioner by means of his objection has contended that the second release application was not maintainable in view of the pendency of the matter of release of the same accommodation as the findings recorded in the earlier release matter were conclusive in between the same parties so long as they exist without any intervention by the competent court. Learned counsel also submits that the Prescribed Authority has dismissed the eviction application filed by the opposite-parties vide order dated 12.10.2007. However, the Additional District Judge by its impugned order dated 22.2.2010 has allowed the appeal filed by the landlord. Lastly, he submits that the need of the tenant is greater than the need of the landlord at the age of 70+ years. The petitioner cannot have another accommodation after his retirement as the petitioner is surviving on a meagre pension of Rs. 1600/-, so he made a request that the impugned order dated 22.2.2010 may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the said accommodation as tenant. 5. On the other hand, Sri N.N.Jaiswal, counsel for opposite-parties no.2 and 3 i.e. landlords has relied on the impugned order. He submits that initial application for eviction was moved on behalf of the father of the landords which was dismissed in year 1976. 5. On the other hand, Sri N.N.Jaiswal, counsel for opposite-parties no.2 and 3 i.e. landlords has relied on the impugned order. He submits that initial application for eviction was moved on behalf of the father of the landords which was dismissed in year 1976. However, after about 6 years in the changed and constrained circumstances of the family and family members, the father of the landlord again moved an application for eviction which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 23.4.1985, against which an appeal was, later on, filed which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 28.7.1987 by the appellate court. Further, the appeal filed in the appellate court was dismissed in default on 26.10.1999. He also submits that the petitioner is continuing in the accommodation at the meagre amount of Rs. 5/- per month. He also submits that the petitioner has never made any attempt since 1962 to search any other accommodation when the proceedings were started. According to the counsel, the petitioner wants to become landlord in the said premises in the name of tenancy. He submits that there is no perversity in the impugned order. He further submits that there are 16 male members in the family of the landlord who need the accommodation for their personal use and also to accommodate the guests. Lastly, he made a request to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the material available on record. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the father of the petitioner had taken the said accommodation at the rate of Rs. 5/- from the father of the landlord. This is the second generation who is continuing in the said accommodation but on the same rent. It is also true that in the meantime, the number of family members of the landlord has increased. Presently, as claimed, there are 16 male members, who have their families and children. The daughters were already married but off and on, they used to visit their parental house along with their spouses and children. So, the requirement of the landlord has increased since when his first eviction application was filed in the year 1976. 8. It is surprised that since 1962 and 1976 when the controversy started, the petitioner never tried to search any alternative accommodation either on rent or on the basis of ownership. So, the requirement of the landlord has increased since when his first eviction application was filed in the year 1976. 8. It is surprised that since 1962 and 1976 when the controversy started, the petitioner never tried to search any alternative accommodation either on rent or on the basis of ownership. As stated, the need of the landlord has already changed. In the impugned orders, the details of the family members have already been given. The petitioner cannot force the landlord to construct any new accommodation in the vacant space of plot to fulfill their needs. In the impugned order, a number of case-laws have been discussed but the same need not to be repeated here. Needless to mention that the tenant cannot be allowed to be owner in the name of tenancy. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 9. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.