JUDGMENT : Mahendra Dayal, J. 1. The tenant petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 21.3.2017, passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow in P.A. Case No. 9/2010 whereby the release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed and the judgment and order dated 4.11.2017, passed by Special Judge (Ayurved Scam), CBI/ Additional District Judge, Lucknow, whereby the Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2017, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. The release application on ground of bona-fide need was filed by the respondent No. 3 in respect of a portion of House No. 13, AP. Sen Road, Lucknow, in which the petitioner is tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, veranda, courtyard and bathroom. The aforesaid premises was allotted to the petitioner about 30 years back. The rate of rent was Rs. 55/- per month. According to the respondent No. 3, a family settlement took place in the year 1987, in which the portion in occupation of petitioner was allotted to the respondent No. 3. Since then he became land-lord of the disputed premises. The respondent No. 3 was an ex-serviceman and was also a disabled person. It was also stated by the respondent No. 3 in his release application that after the retirement, he wanted to settle at Lucknow and since he had no other occupation, therefore the premises in accommodation of the petitioner, be released in his favour. 3. The release application was contested by the petitioner by filing his written statement and it was said that House No. 13 A.P. Sen Road, Lucknow was owned by late Shiv Dayal Singh. After his death, his son B.K. Chaurasia was allotted a share in the house. The other family members were also allotted shares. According to the petitioner, the portion in his tenancy was allotted to Smt. Kanchan Lata Chaurasia who was real sister of the respondent No. 3. She also filed a suit for declaration being Suit No. 253 of 1990, which was decided on 8.2.1991 declaring her to be the owner of the said portion. Smt. Kanchan Lata died on 19.9.2007 and after her death, her son became owner and landlord. Thus the petitioner denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent No. 3. It was also said that Smt. Kanchan Lat had filed P.A. Case No. 775 of 1989 which was dismissed. 4. Smt. Kanchan Lata died on 19.9.2007 and after her death, her son became owner and landlord. Thus the petitioner denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent No. 3. It was also said that Smt. Kanchan Lat had filed P.A. Case No. 775 of 1989 which was dismissed. 4. The learned Prescribed Authority took evidence of the parties and also framed point of determination. The learned Prescribed Authority on the basis of evidence, recorded a finding that the respondent No. 3 was the landlord of the premises in question and his need was bona-fide and genuine. It was also found that the respondent No. 3 would suffer greater hardship in case his application is rejected. With these findings, the release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, passed by the Prescribed Authority, preferred Rent Appeal No. 7 of 2007, which was also dismissed on 4.11.2017. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order of both the courts below, mainly on the ground that it was established from the evidence on record that the respondent No. 3 was not the owner land-lord of the disputed premises. Smt. Kanchan Lata, who was the real sister of respondent No. 3, was allotted the disputed premises in the family partition as is evident from the judgment rendered in Case No. 253 of 1990. She had also filed an application for release against the petitioner and the same was rejected. Thus the release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was not maintainable. The learned courts below have committed manifest error of law in recording a contrary finding. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the question of title and since the Prescribed Authority was not competent to decide the question of title, the prescribed authority ought to have either rejected the application or to have returned the application for presentation to the proper court for determination of title. The petitioner had applied for amendment of the pleadings at the appellate stage but the same was rejected. 8. The petitioner had applied for amendment of the pleadings at the appellate stage but the same was rejected. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has on the other hand submitted that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding on the basis of evidence that the respondent No. 3 was the owner and the landlord of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. This finding has been recorded on appreciation of evidence and being a finding of fact, the same cannot be challenged by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner has failed to show as to how the findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse or against the law. The findings are based on appraisal of evidence and are also correct, therefore no interference with regard to this finding is warranted at this stage. So far as the need of the respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is not disputed that the respondent No. 3 served in Indian Army and had no other accommodation to live after retirement. There is special provision under the Rent Control Act for release of the premises in favour of such persons. The petitioner being tenant, kept on contesting the release application since last about 7 years but did not make any effort to find out alternate accommodation. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner made any effort to find out any other accommodation to live in. This should be weighed against the petitioner. So far as the question with regard to return of plaint is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is that since no complicated question of title is involved therefore both the courts below rightly entertained the release application. It is not disputed that Smt. Kanchan Lata to whom the petitioner claims to be the landlord, is no more and his only son, had already given affidavit to the effect that the respondent No. 3 is the owner of the disputed premises. Thus both the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order. 9. Thus both the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order. 9. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the parties and having gone through the record, as well as the law cited on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and order passed by both the courts below. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two months' time to vacate the premises in question and handover its possession to the respondent No. 3, failing which it will be open for the respondent No. 3 to enforce the release order in accordance with law.