Undoubtedly, the appellees would enjoy a greater economic gain from the sale or use of the property under an R-A classification; however, this Court has repeatedly held that the fact that rezoning may result in the realization of greater profits from use of the land or that hardship may follow from the retention of the existing classification is not sufficient justification for rezoning. See Agneslane, Inc. v. Lucas, 247 Md. 612, 614, 233 A.2d 757 (1967); Board of County Commissioners v. Kay, 240 Md. 690, 695, 215 A.2d 206, 208 (1965); Board of County Comm. of Prince George's County v. Edmonds, 240 Md. 680, 689, 215 A.2d 209 (1965); Baltimore City v. Borinsky, 239 Md. 611, 622, 212 A.2d 508, 514 (1965); Reiskin v. Montgomery County Council, 229 Md. 142, 146, 182 A.2d 34 (1962). Change

We might add that the appellees did not offer to prove that the denial of the rezoning request deprived them of all beneficial use of the property, a recognized ground for rezoning. Frankel v. City of Baltimore, 223 Md. 97, 162 A.2d 447. Clearly the fact it would be more profitable to the owners to use the land for multiple-family medium density residential is not controlling if it can be used reasonably for the purposes for which it is already zoned. Reiskin v. Mont. County Council, 229 Md. 142, 182 A.2d 34; Mont. Co. Council v. Scrimgeour, 211 Md. 306, 127 A.2d 528. The Ertters have resided for several years on the property in a single family residence. Furthermore we do not think that the paving of an area of the armory lot, stressed by the appellees, made the necessity for rezoning the property less debatable, when that factor was considered by the district council.

The appellants strongly contend that the denial of their petition amounts to a taking of their property under the rule laid down in such cases as Frankel v. City of Baltimore, 223 Md. 97 and cases there cited. Cf. Reiskin v. Mont. County Council, 229 Md. 142. We think, however, that the appellants fell short of establishing that the denial of their petition would deprive them of any reasonable use of their property.

" The testimony, unsatisfactory as it is in its vagueness, could be interpreted as bringing the case within the holdings of Reiskin v. Montgomery County Council, 229 Md. 142, and Cities Service Oil Co. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 226 Md. 204, rather than being controlled by Frankel and Cohn. In Reiskin there was evidence that made it fairly debatable whether the land there involved, which was in the midst of residences, as is the land here involved, could be used for the single family dwelling classification for which it was zoned, and it was pointed out that the general residential environment and the reasonable probability of use for which zoned, less profitable though it might be, distinguished the case from Frankel and Cohn, and made the action of the County Council in denying reclassification neither arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory nor unconstitutional in effect.