JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendant petitioner and Sri Anupam Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs respondents/landlord. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that disputed building is situate in Triveniganj, Timber Nagar, Garh Road, Hapur. It appears that initially only ground floor was constructed in the form of a big hall and it was let out to New Insurance India on a monthly rent of Rs. 2700/- as evident from copy of Khasra for the year 1986-87. It further appears that one room and toilet was constructed on the first floor which was let out to the defendant-petitioner/tenant in the year 2007. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a release application dated 18.4.2017 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, for release of a room situate on the first floor which was under tenancy of the defendant- petitioner. In paragraph 28 of the written statement the defendant-petitioner had stated as under: ^^;g fd oknh la[;k 2 o 4 vkil esa lxh cgusa gS ;k ugha bldh Áfroknh dks tkudkjh ugha gSaA oknh la[;k 2 o 4 ds lEcU/k esa ;g dguk fd mUgksaus fdlh ujs'k tSu ihreiqjk fnYyh ls vkfVZfQf'k;y dke dh tkudkjh dh gS vkSj Ø; foØ; djuk lh[kk gS iw.kZ :i ls xyr gS rFkk oknhx.k dk ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd mUgkasus viuh dfFkr f'k{kk ds nkSjku gSUM+eSM+] ilZ] cSXl] MsdksjsfVM+ MhŒ,Œ dSfUMyl] ckldsV vkfn dk dk;Z lh[kk gS iw.kZ :i ls xyr gS mDr dFku oknhx.k us ek= lk{; cukus ds mn~ns'; ls vius dfFkr fj'rsnkj dk uke vafdr djrs gq, okni= dks jaxr nsus dh dksf'k'k dh gSA dfFkr dk;Z ds fy;s fdlh O;kikfjd LFkku dh vko';drk ugha gksrh bl dk;Z dh oknhx.k vius ?kj ij Hkh dj ldrs gS rFkk oknhx.k ds ?kj esa dfFkr dk;Z ds fy;s i;kZIr L;ku miyC/k gS okni= dh /kkjk 6 esa fy[ks x;s leLr dFku dsoy lk{; x<+us ds fy;s fd;s x;s gSa ftlesa ys'kek= Hkh lPpkbZ ugha gSA** 3. The aforesaid release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 2017, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.) 1st, Hapur, recording findings of fact that the building is commercial and there is bona-fide need of the plaintiffs- respondents for the disputed portion of the building in question. The aforesaid release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 9 of 2017, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.) 1st, Hapur, recording findings of fact that the building is commercial and there is bona-fide need of the plaintiffs- respondents for the disputed portion of the building in question. Aggrieved with this order, the defendant-petitioner had filed Rent Control Appeal No. 09 of 2017, Shiv Kumar v. Kapil Kripal Singhal and Others which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.11.2017. Aggrieved with these two orders the defendant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the aforesaid two orders/judgments. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the building is residential, the release application was barred by the 3rd provision to Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In support of his submissions he relied upon the decisions of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Deepak Tandon and Another, 2016 (8) ADJ 652 and Saryu Prasad Yadav and Another v. Ram Chandra Bari and Another, 2008 (3) ADJ 244 . 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the building is commercial as evident from the Khasra as well as own admission of the defendant petitioner in paragraph 28 of the written statement. He further submits that concurrent findings of fact with regard to the commercial nature of the building in question has been recorded by the courts below and, therefore, it can be interfered in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He supports the findings recorded in the impugned judgments/orders. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Undisputedly, the building in question consists of a huge hall on the ground floor and only one room in the first floor along with a toilet and a kitchen. The building in question is being admittedly use for commercial purposes. Only a small portion of it situate on the first floor was let out to the defendant-petitioner who was using it for residential purposes. Thus, there is no dispute that except a very small portion situate on the first floor, the rest of the portion of the building in question is being used as commercial. Only a small portion of it situate on the first floor was let out to the defendant-petitioner who was using it for residential purposes. Thus, there is no dispute that except a very small portion situate on the first floor, the rest of the portion of the building in question is being used as commercial. The commercial nature of the building in question is also evident from the copy of Khasra filed in evidence and the copy of which has also been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition which shows that as per Khasra of the year 1986-87, the building in question was under tenancy of New Insurance India at the monthly rent of Rs. 2,700/-. Perusal of paragraph 28 of the written statement also indicates that the defendant-petitioner himself has sated that the work which the plaintiffs-respondents want to carry on, may be carried on by them at their home and for which no commercial place is required. This itself also shows admission of the defendant- petitioner that the building in question is commercial. 8. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based on consideration of relevant material and evidences on record and, therefore, it can not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner is of no help to him inasmuch as perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 itself shows that except one room, the entire building was being used for residential purpose and accordingly, it was found that building is residential. In the present set of facts the factual position is entirely different inasmuch as except one room the entire building is being used for commercial purposes. The use of building for commercial purposes is also evident from copy of Khasra of the year 1986-87. Thus, the judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) has no application on the facts of the present case. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Saryu Prasad Yadav (supra) is also of no help to the petitioner on the facts of the present case. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed.