ORDER M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. 2. Prem Anand opposite party No. 1 is the owner of house No. 40 situate in Mohalla Turab Nagar in the town of Ghaziabad. It was in tenancy of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. The landlord moved an application under Section 21 of the said Act for release of this house on the ground that he bonafide required it for his own use and that it was in dilapidated condition and required to be reconstructed. It was further alleged that the tenant's wife had constructed a house in Mohalla Nehru Nagar in the same town and the tenant can shift to that house without any inconvenience. 3. The tenant contested that application inter alia on the grounds that Prem Anand alone was not entitled to apply for release as there were the co-owners also, that the landlord had no need for the house; that it was not in a dilapidated condition nor the requirements of rule 17 were complied with and that the house constructed by his wife was her stridhan property and was in occupation of tenants. 4. The prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that Explanation I to Section 21(1) was applicable to this case and the tenant's defence could not be taken into consideration. He allowed the application for release. The tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act and the learned IV Additional District Judge, Meerut, came to the conclusion that Prem Anand alone was the landlord and was entitled to apply for release, that he had bonafide need for this building and as Explanation I to Section 21(1) was attracted to the facts of this case comparison of hardship of the landlord and the tenant was not necessary. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this writ petition by the tenant. 5. The first question urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the house originally belonged to one Bua Das, father of opposite part No. 1. Bua Das executed a will in favour of his wife Smt. Shakuntla Devi regarding his properties. The appeal was dismissed. Hence this writ petition by the tenant. 5. The first question urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the house originally belonged to one Bua Das, father of opposite part No. 1. Bua Das executed a will in favour of his wife Smt. Shakuntla Devi regarding his properties. After his death Smt. Shakuntla Devi became the owner of the properties and on her death her two sons, namely, Prem Anand and Krishna Kumar Anand and two daughters became the owners of the properties and should have joined in moving the application under Section 21 of the Act. Prem Anand alone was not competent to do so. In this connection reliance is placed on the judgment of suit No. 385 of 1968 filed by Prem Anand against him for ejectment from a shop and recovery of arrears of rent. In that suit he had taken the plea that Prem Anand alone was not entitled to sue. This plea found favour with the trial Court and the appellate Court and the suit of Prem Anand was dismissed. It is, therefore, urged that Prem Anand alone was not entitled to apply for release. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter and in my judgment the learned Additional District Judge came to a correct conclusion that Prem Anand was entitled to apply for release. Much capital cannot be made out of the judgment in suit No. 385 of 1968 because the property involved in that suit was a shop. That might have been let out by all the co-owners and it may be on this score that Prem Anand was held to be not maintainable. Besides it, there was another litigation in 1971 between Prem Anand and his brother. It was suit No. 70 of 1971 in which it was held that Prem Anand alone is the owner of the disputed building. Other co-sharers appear to have relinquished their interest in it. There is nothing on the record to show that it was a collusive decree. Besides it, the property in suit was allotted in favour of the petitioner. In the allotment order Prem Anand alone was described as landlord and relationship of landlord and tenant will be deemed to have been created between them only. There is nothing on the record to show that it was a collusive decree. Besides it, the property in suit was allotted in favour of the petitioner. In the allotment order Prem Anand alone was described as landlord and relationship of landlord and tenant will be deemed to have been created between them only. Rule 15 framed under the Act simply states that the application for release shall be signed by all the co-landlords if there are more than one landlords. It nowhere says that it shall be signed by all the co-owners. As stated above, Prem Anand alone was held to be the owner of this property in suit No. 70 of 1971. In the allotment order also he alone was described as landlord. Therefore, the application by him alone was perfectly maintainable. This contention of the petitioner carried no force. 7. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his wife had constructed a house before the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 came into force and it was in possession of tenants. There is nothing on the record to show that it was constructed before 1972. Even if it be so, the learned District Judge has said in his judgment that the house is in occupation of the tenant's wife as is evident from the extract of municipal register. The petitioner's wife never filed any objection in the municipal board that she was not in possession. No explanation is forthcoming why the names of those who are said to be in possession as tenants were not recorded. In these circumstances there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioner's wife has constructed a house and she is residing in it. Even if the house was constructed before 1972, his wife, who is a member of his family, is in possession if it. This house, therefore, will be deemed to be available to him and Explanation will be fully attracted to this case. The learned District Judge has held that the landlord has bonafide need for the disputed accommodation. Since Explanation 1 is applicable to this case comparison of hardship of the landlord and the tenants was not at all necessary. Therefore, the learned District Judge arrived at a correct conclusion. 8. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with costs on parties. Since Explanation 1 is applicable to this case comparison of hardship of the landlord and the tenants was not at all necessary. Therefore, the learned District Judge arrived at a correct conclusion. 8. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with costs on parties. The petitioner is allowed three months time to vacate the disputed building.