JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - This is landlord's writ petition filed against the order rejecting his application for release filed under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The application was based on the ground that the premises in dispute had been purchased by the petitioner and is required by them, bonafide, for their personal use. The Prescribed Authority and Additional District Judge after comparing the needs of the landlord and the tenant have recorded a finding of fact that the need of the tenant is greater then that of the landlord. The finding is not vitiated by any error of law. 2. It has been further urged by the counsel for the petitioners that the provisions acts harshly against a landlord who has only one house or who has purchased and is the owner of only one house. In such cases the comparison of the need of landlord with that of a tenant is not necessary and the mere fact that the landlord has only one house is a ground sufficient for releasing the premises in his favour. If this is not done, it is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. He has also placed reliance on K. Nagoppa v. T.D. Krishanasa and another, 1971 R.C.J. 875. 3. So far the decision reported in 1971 Rent Control Journal is concerned there is a Provision in the Andhra Pradesh Act which permits, the release application to be allowed where landlord owns only one house. There is no such provision in the U.P. Act. The decision thus does not help the petitioners. 4. The argument on Article 19 is devoid of any merit. The right to hold property is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Urban Buildings Act is an act in the interest of general public for regulation of letting and eviction of tenants. In an application for release of the building the landlord has to establish bonafide need. This condition cannot be termed as unreasonable. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.