Sudhir Agarwal,J.:- Heard Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 to 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 in Misc. Appeal No. 341 of 1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Meerut and judgment and order dated 12.8.1998 in P.A. Case No. 59 of 1995 passed by Prescribed Authority/ Addl. Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut. 3. Brief facts of case are that petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") before Prescribed Authority for release of ground floor of house no. 249 situate at Teli Mohalla Kabari Bazar, Meerut Cantt. under the tenancy of respondents-tenants alleging that they had been given accommodation in dispute on rent for residential purposes and it was being used by them as a godown; that house no. 247 in which landlord is living with is family has been insufficient due to increase in family; and that respondents-tenants have purchased their own house no. 415/416 in the same locality, where house in dispute is situated, hence it may be released in favour of landlord on grounds of bona fide need and comparative hardship. 4. The respondents-tenants filed objection denying relationship of landlord and tenants asserting that accommodation in possession of landlord is sufficient for his family; that he is residing in disputed accommodation and not using it as a godown; that house no. 415/416 was purchased by his wife 40 years back by her Stridhan before Act, 1972 came into force and that aforesaid house is a two storied building having four shops on the ground floor wherein his sons are doing business and on the first floor, his two sons are living with their families and he along with his wife is living in disputed accommodation; that apart from aforesaid disputed house, tenant has no residential house in Kaseru Khada and Rajban Bazar; that landlord of disputed accommodation is Shanker Lal and not applicant Navin Kumar; and that need of landlord is not bona fide and release application is liable to be rejected. 5. 5. The Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 12.8.1988, dismissed release application of petitioner-landlord holding that need of landlord-petitioner is not bona fide and property in the name of the wife of the tenant i.e. house no.415/416 is excluded from consideration of exception under Section 21(1)(a) of Act 1972. 6. Aggrieved by aforesaid order dated 12.8.1988, petitioner-landlord preferred Misc. Appeal No. 341 of 1998 before Appellate Court, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 confirming findings of Trial Court, hence this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that petitioner adduced evidence before Prescribed Authority that besides house no. 415/416, Teli Mohalla, tenants-respondents have another residential house no. 284 situate in Kasheru Khada, Meerut in the name of wife of original tenant Nihal Chand. This fact, according to the petitioner, is admitted by tenant that he had purchased aforesaid property in the name of his wife for business of Junk or ''Kabar' and it is not a residential property and in the assessment receipt, it is shown as a room of 8 x 10 ft. therefore, it cannot be treated as junk or ''Kabar' shop but Prescribed Authority has not taken into consideration aforesaid property while deciding release application. 8. He also submits that tenant has admitted in para 4 of objection that he resides with his wife in disputed accommodation no 249 while his children reside in house no. 415/416 Teli Mohalla Kabari Bazar, Meerut Cantt. Meerut and after the death of original tenant Nihal Chand on 15.7.2001, his wife Smt. Vidyawati is residing with her sons and therefore, disputed accommodation has become useless for tenant since as per their own admission, they were using it for residential purposes. He next submitted that finding of Appellate Court is also silent about number of accommodation in ownership and possession of tenant. 9. The appeal of the landlord was dismissed on the ground that he has got 8 rooms in his occupation and therefore, he has no bona fide need of accommodation in dispute; that the Courts below have misinterpreted Commissioner's report dated 6.12.1997 and have not considered objection of petitioner-landlord wherein he explained that Sanehi Lal had no issue and therefore, he adopted petitioner, who is son of nephew of Sanehi Lal, Sri Shanker Lal and that since the life time of Sanehi Lal, Shanker Lal is also living in house no. 247 and accommodation in his possession and use cannot be presumed to be in occupation and use of petitioner. 10. He also submits that even if it assumed that Shankar Lal, real father of petitioner was also residing in house no. 247 then also accommodation on the ground floor would be needed by landlord since children have now become major and requirement of space for the family has increased now with passage of time; that need of accommodation by landlord depends upon various factors like social status, age of members of family; and that hence tenant cannot take defence that accommodation in possession of landlord is sufficient for his need, moreso, when tenant himself has more than required accommodation in the same city for his residence. 11. Before this Court, Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant could not dispute that tenants have their own house no.415/416, Teli Mohalla and another in Kasheru Khada, Meerut being House No.284, which is in the name of respondent no.6. 12. In view of the above, it is thus admitted fact that tenants-respondents have their own house no. 415/416 in Teli Mohalla besides another residential house no. 284 situate in Kasheru Khada, Meerut, which is in the name of respondent no.6, Smt. Vidyawati, widow of original tenant late Nihal Chand. Late Nihal Chand, original tenant had admitted that he had purchased aforesaid house no. 284 for the business of ''Kabar' and it is not a residential property. It is nowhere averred that the said property is still being used for junk business after the death of Nihal Chand. Rather it is on record that house no. 415/416 has 4 shops on ground floor in which sons of tenant are doing their independent business. The Courts below have not taken into consideration aforesaid property while deciding release application and the fact that sons and daughters in the family of landlord have now become major and family has increased with passage of time, hence need of landlord for more space is genuine, bona fide and he is suffering greater hardship than the tenants, who have their own houses. 13. Once the tenant or any member of his family acquires house in a vacant state in the same city, they have no right to keep house of landlord in their possession. 13. Once the tenant or any member of his family acquires house in a vacant state in the same city, they have no right to keep house of landlord in their possession. In the instant case, admitted fact is that tenants have their own house and they have got an alternative accommodation in their possession, hence in view of explanation (i) to Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972, which provides that if any of member of tenant's family has acquired an alternate accommodation, the tenant cannot contest the claim of need of landlord on the ground that there is no bona fide need of landlord. Explanation (i) to Section 21(1) of Act, 1972 as under automatically applies to the facts of the instant case. "Explanation- In the case of a residential building- (i) where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with him or is wholly dependent on his has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained." 14. In my view, once the fact that tenants have their own house in the same city, right to oppose landlord's application under Section 21(1)(a) disappear and thereafter, the Courts below had to consider reason assigned by landlord on its own without being influenced by what has been contended by tenant. In the present case, approach of Courts below is not correct and, therefore, judgments impugned in the writ petition cannot sustain. Admittedly, the tenants have their own house and they have got an alternative accommodation, which is said to be a room of 8"x10ft. His wife is also now admittedly living with the sons, but it appears that tenant is living in accommodation in dispute all alone only for the purpose of harassment of landlord for ulterior motives. The findings of Courts below that bona fide need and comparative hardship of tenants are greater than petitioner- landlord are against evidence on record and are not sustainable in the aforesaid circumstances. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of Courts below are quashed. The findings of Courts below that bona fide need and comparative hardship of tenants are greater than petitioner- landlord are against evidence on record and are not sustainable in the aforesaid circumstances. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders of Courts below are quashed. The respondents-tenants are directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of disputed accommodation to the landlord within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. _______________