JUDGMENT : K.N. Seth, J. This is a petition arising out of an application of the landlord u/s 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The case set up by the landlord was that he purchased the house in dispute in 1968 for residential purposes. His family consisting of himself, his wife, four sons and one daughter lived with him and the accommodation was insufficient for their need. The relation between the ladies of the house were also not cordial and it had become impossible for the landlord to live in that house. It was further pleaded that the tenants were rich persons and had constructed their own houses, where they were living separately. It was asserted that the need of the applicant landlord was genuine and that the tenants would not be put to any inconvenience if they were evicted from the house in dispute. 3. The tenants denied that the need of the landlord for the house in dispute was genuine. It was asserted that the landlord was living comfortably with his father in a big house and that he had another residential accommodation in which he could comfortably live. It was alleged that the Petitioner No.2 had only constructed shops and no residential accommodation has been constructed by him. 4. The Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord for the accommodation in dispute was bonafide and that the tenants were comfortably living in their own houses. The Prescribed Authority further found that the Petitioner No. 2 had recently constructed his residential accommodation and four shops and he was living with his family in the recently constructed building. The learned District Judge affirmed that finding of the Prescribed Authority that the Petitioner No. 2 had constructed a house of his own and he was residing in that house. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Explanation 1 to Section 21 of the Act was attracted and the objection of the tenant was not competent and further that the landlord was not required to prove the genuineness or bonafide of his need, instead in such a case such needs shall be deemed sufficient under the Explanation. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Explanation 1 to Section 21 of the Act was attracted and the objection of the tenant was not competent and further that the landlord was not required to prove the genuineness or bonafide of his need, instead in such a case such needs shall be deemed sufficient under the Explanation. In the opinion of the learned Judge, the Explanation lays down rule of evidence which raises presumption with regard to the need of the landlord and that in an application u/s 21 of the Act when the explanation is attracted the bonafide need of the landlord is to be presumed and the landlord is not required to prove such need. On the presumption raised the learned Judge held that the need of the landlord was bonafide. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the learned Judge committed an error in discarding the evidence led by the parties in support of the plea that the residential accommodation alleged to have been constructed by Kishan Chand was in fact constructed by his brother Mahabir Prasad alone and the land on which the property stood was purchased with the joint family fund. This contention has no merit. In the written statement filed by the tenants it was nowhere alleged that the land had been purchased with the joint family fund or that the residential accommodation had been constructed by Mahabir Prasad and Kishan Chand had no concern with it. Affidavit in evidence could be filed in support of the pleas raised in the written statement or the objection filed by the tenants but it could not travel beyond the case pleaded by them. Since no such plea was raised in the objection filed by them the learned Judge was justified in discarding the averments made in the affidavit which set up a different case altogether. The learned District Judge arrived at the conclusion that Kishan Chand had constructed a residential accommodation and was actually residing in it with his family. The land over which the property stood was purchased in the name of Kishan Chand alone under the sale deed dated 25-6-1970. It was Kishan Chand who moved an application for taking water connection for his domestic use and the permission was granted to him on 26-2-1975. The land over which the property stood was purchased in the name of Kishan Chand alone under the sale deed dated 25-6-1970. It was Kishan Chand who moved an application for taking water connection for his domestic use and the permission was granted to him on 26-2-1975. Extracts from Tax Register of the Municipal Board indicated that Kishan Chand was the owner of the property and was residing in it with his family. It may be mentioned here that the Prescribed Authority had appointed a commissioner who after inspection reported that Kishan Chand was residing in the building constructed by him and the adjoining house was owned and occupied by Kailash Chand. The Prescribed Authority believed the report of the Commissioner and recorded a finding that both the tenants lived in the houses owned by them. In the appeal filed by the tenants no specific challenge was made to the finding that Kailash Chand resided in his own house. In such a situation no grievance could be made that the learned District Judge did not give a specific finding that Kailash Chand was residing in the house owned by him. The finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the learned District Judge that the tenants were residing in the building owned by them must be affirmed. 6. On the findings recorded, Explanation 1 appended to Section 21 is clearly attracted and the objection is rendered incompetent. The view taken by the learned District Judge that since Explanation 1 is attracted, the bonafide need of the landlord is to be presumed and the landlord is not required to prove such need, however, cannot be sustained. Explanation 1 provides: Where the tenant or any member of his family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against the application under this sub-section shall be entertained. 7. It does not specifically lay down that a presumption would be raised regarding genuineness of the need of the landlord or that the statutory requirement that the building was bonafide required by the landlord was dispensed with. Section 21 requires that a landlord seeking eviction of his tenants has to establish that he needed accommodation bonafide. The tenant is entitled to resist the application of the landlord. Section 21 requires that a landlord seeking eviction of his tenants has to establish that he needed accommodation bonafide. The tenant is entitled to resist the application of the landlord. The explanation however takes away that right of the tenant in the situations mentioned therein. A tenant may have no right to object to the application of the landlord but that does not dispense with the requirements of law that the landlord has to establish bonafide need for the accommodation. If the legislature intended that in case Explanation 1 is attracted, the need of the landlord shall be presumed or that the landlord need not establish the genuineness of his need, that intention would have been made express as has been done in the other explanations. There may be a case where a tenant may have no right or objection but the need of the landlord may not be genuine for example where he has already more than sufficient accommodation at his disposal. In such a case the landlord would not be entitled to an order of eviction of his tenant. The learned Judge committed an obvious error in holding that in view of the Explanation 1 the landlord is not required to prove that his need was bonafide. 8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents urged that though the learned Judge took the view that the landlord would not be required to prove the bonafides of his need, yet his judgment indicates that he affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority on this aspect also. Referring to the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, wherein the learned Judge observed that the finding of the prescribed authority was perfectly correct is supported by evidence on record, it was contended that since it was an order of affirmance it was not necessary for the learned Judge to discuss all the evidence and come to his own conclusion and it was sufficient for him to affirm the finding of the Prescribed Authority. I am not impressed by the argument. The judgment of the learned District Judge proceeds on the basis that in view of Explanation 1 the landlord was not required to establish the genuineness of his need and it has to be presumed in his favour. It was on this basis that he affirmed the decision of the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlord was genuine. The judgment of the learned District Judge proceeds on the basis that in view of Explanation 1 the landlord was not required to establish the genuineness of his need and it has to be presumed in his favour. It was on this basis that he affirmed the decision of the Prescribed Authority that the need of the landlord was genuine. There is no indication in his judgment that he applied his Independent mind to the facts of the case. It may be that on the facts on record the need of the landlord is established but the learned Judge was required to apply his mind to this aspect of the case also. Since the learned Judge has not applied his mind to this aspect of the case the matter has to be sent back to him for consideration. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order of the learned District Judge dated 26-10-1976 is quashed to the extent indicated above. The learned Judge shall readmit the appeal to its original number and decide expeditiously the question whether the need of the landlord for the accommodation in dispute was bonafide, ignoring the objections raised by the tenants. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.