Sudhir Agarwal,J. This is a tenants' petition, who have lost in both the courts below. The respondent-landlord's application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") seeking release of disputed property on the ground of personal need, was considered by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Orai at Jalaun in P.A. Case No. 02 of 2011 and on both the questions, namely, genuinity of personal need and comparative hardship, he has recorded findings in favour of respondent-landlord, hence allowed application vide judgment dated 10.05.2012 and, thereagainst petitioners' appeal has also been dismissed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2013. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that landlord has a very big house in his possession having 18 rooms and, therefore, both the courts below have erred on law in holding in respect of one room, which is in possession of petitioner, that landlord's need is genuine. 3. However, I find that on this aspect the Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that petitioners failed to prove this fact, as is evident from following: ^^bl izdkj vihykaV~l @ izfroknhx.k ds lkf{k;ksa us oknh @ mRrjnkrk ds ikl fookfnr dejs okys edku esa 18 dejs gksus dk dFku fd;k gS rFkk oknh dks eqgYyk rqQSyiqjok dLck mjbZ esa fLFkr ,d cM+s edku esa lifjokj vkckn gksus dk dFku fd;k gS] fdUrq vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa vU; dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA** "In this way, witnesses for appellants/defendants have stated the plaintiff/respondent to have 18 rooms in the house with the disputed room and the plaintiff to be settled along with his family in a big house situated in Mohalla Tufailpurwa, Kasba Urai; but they have not produced any other documentary evidence in support of their statements." (English translation by the Court) 4. Besides above, both the courts below have also found that petitioner no. 1, Smt. Meena Verma has already got another accommodation under Kansiram Awas Yojna and as per Section 21, First Explanation, if one of the member of family has already got another residential accommodation, the objection of tenant on the application of landlord filed under Section 21(1(a) shall not be entertainable. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that aforesaid accommodation became available and was allotted to Smt. Meena Verma, mother of petitioners no. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that aforesaid accommodation became available and was allotted to Smt. Meena Verma, mother of petitioners no. 2 and 3. 5. In view of above, since both the issues have been decided in favour of respondent-landlord recording concurrent findings of facts, which have not been shown perverse or contrary to record, I do not find any reason to interfere. 6. Dismissed. ________________