The petitioner is tenant of House No. 42/14-A, Billockpura, Agra. The respondent No. 3 being landlord moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for its release which was allowed on 18th April, 1998. The petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 27 of 1998 which was also dismissed by order dated 18th April, 2001. From the perusal of the orders, it is clear that there is concurrent findings of both the Courts that the need of the landlord- respondent No. 3 is bona fideand that the hardship also titled in his favour. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of release.

2. I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the respondents.

The concurrent finding of the Courts below regarding genuine need and hardship cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India as has been laid down in the various cases of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, namely, Kamla Sarinv. Shyam Lal and others,1984 (2) ARC 344;