IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2601 of 2011 (M/S) Pramod Kumar & another … Petitioners Versus Vinay Kumar Jindal … Respondent Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. In the instant case, the petitioners are the tenants against whom a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act has been filed. During the pendency before the prescribed authority, an application for issuance of a commission was filed by the petitioners contending that the landlord is in possession of several rooms, which would be sufficient to accommodate his family members and consequently, there is no bonafide need to release the accommodation in question. This application was allowed and a commission was appointed who submitted a report. The petitioner filed objection, which was rejected, against which a revision was filed, which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded back with certain observations. Thereafter, a fresh commission was appointed and a fresh report was submitted. Again objection was filed by the petitioner, which has been rejected, against which, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, the Court finds that the commission report does not require any interference, since, the Court does not find any illegality in it. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 15.12.2011 Aswal