JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 2. The opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 are the landlords of house No. 55 situate in mohalla Khatrana, Shikohabad. One Suraj Mal, predecessor of the petitioners occupied this house as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month from 1951. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 purchased this house on 27/10/1965 and thereby became landlords of the tenants. They moved an application under section 21(1) (a) of the said Act for release of this house on the ground of bona fide need. It was alleged that they are living in a Kachcha room and suffering great discomfort and hardship. They purchased the disputed house for their own occupation and requested Suraj Mal to vacate it but in vain. 3. The application was contested, inter-alia, on the grounds that the landlords have no bona fide need but they want to enhance the rent and that the house already occupied by the landlord is quite sufficient to meet their requirements. 4. Suraj Mal died during the pendency of the proceedings and his heirs were brought on the record. These heirs raised an additional plea that the application for release was bad for non joinder of the daughters of Suraj Mal. 5. After going through the evidence on the record the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the landlords had no need for the disputed building and rejected their application. The landlords filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application. The tenants were granted six month's time to vacate the premises. They have, therefore filed this petition for quashing the order passed by the learned District Judge. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. The learned District Judge has apprised the entire evidence on the record and arrived at the conclusion that the landlords opposite parties have bona fide need for the building. There is no manifest error of law to justify interference with this finding. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the landlords have got the bona fide need for accommodation. 7. There is no manifest error of law to justify interference with this finding. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the landlords have got the bona fide need for accommodation. 7. Similarly a proper comparison of hardship has been made and the learned district Judge has come to the conclusion that greater hardship will be caused to the landlords by the rejection of the application than will be caused to the tenants if the application is allowed. This finding also does not suffer from any legal infirmity and cannot be disturbed. The point which has been pressed is that the landlords at first moved an application under section 3 of the erstwhile U P. Act No. 1II of 1947 and as that application was rejected the second application under section 21 of the New Act was barred by res-judicata. It has been negatived by learned District Judge and in my opinion rightly. 8. There is no bar to the filing of a second application for release under the New Act. All that rule 18(2) lays down is that where an application of a landlord against a tenant under section 21 for the release of any building for any specific part thereof or any surplus land appurtenant to the said building is rejected on merits and an application on the same ground is made within a period of one year from that decision the Prescribed Authority shall accept the findings in those proceedings as conclusive. It makes it clear that if a second application is moved after one year from the date of rejection of the first application it can be disposed of on merits. If it is presented within a year then the findings recorded in the previous proceedings shall be taken as conclusive. In the instant case the application under section 3 of the Old Act was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 30/3/1968. The revision was filed which was allowed on 31/7/1968 and the petition to the Government under section 7-F of that Act was dismissed on 18/9/1968 The release application under section 21 was moved on 18/1/1973 i e. long after the expiry of one year from 18/9/68. Therefore it could not be barred in any manner or the findings given in the matter under section 3 of the old Act could be treated as conclusive. Therefore it could not be barred in any manner or the findings given in the matter under section 3 of the old Act could be treated as conclusive. The application under section 21 was moved after a lapse of about four years from date of rejection of the first application and during this period the circumstance could change necessitating release of the building. The learned District Judge has referred to all these matters in his judgment and it cannot be said that he has committed any manifest error of law in deciding the case. 9. In the result, the writ petition has no force and is dismissed with costs on parties. The petitioners are however granted three months' time to vacate the disputed buildings.