JUDGMENT K. C. Agrawal, J.:- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Muzafarnagar dated August 1, 1973. 2. The premises in dispute is a shop. It belonged to respondent No. 3 Sri Ram Kishan. He filed an application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the first two Khand of the shop shown by letters A B C D in the site plan. The application was contested by the petitioners. He denied that the landlord had any bona fide requirement for the shop as he was comfortably carrying on his business in a rented shop for the last several years. He also alleged that the shop did not belong to respondent No. 3 but it was a joint hundi family property which belonged to him and his brothers. Both the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective cases. The prescribed Authority rejected the application. Against the order of the prescribed Authority, respondent No. 3 carried the matter in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 1.8.1973 and the prayer made in the application filed by respondent No. 3 was granted. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has filed the present petition. 3. It may be noted that the application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge only on the ground that as the respondent no. 1 was carrying on business in a rented shop and was paying Rs. 210/- per month as rent and whereas he was getting Rs. 7.50 only for his own shop in the tenancy of the tenant, therefore, the need of the respondent No. 3 was genuine. The question that arises for decision is, whether simply because respondent no. 3 was paying higher rent of the premises in his tenancy that what he was getting from his tenant could be a ground for allowing an application under section 21 of the Act. Section 21 requires a landlord to establish that the building is required a by him either in its existing form or after demolition and reconstruction for occupation by himself or any of his family member. The words "bona fide requirement" connotes the idea that the premises should be required by the landlord for his use and occupation. Unless a landlord proves that a building is required by him, his application cannot be granted. The words "bona fide requirement" connotes the idea that the premises should be required by the landlord for his use and occupation. Unless a landlord proves that a building is required by him, his application cannot be granted. In the instant case, the finding given by the learned Additional District Judge about the bona fide requirement is thus solely and exclusively based on the fact that the respondent no. 3 was paying more than what he was getting from his tenant. This could hardly be said to have satisfied the bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord. The learned Additional District Judge while allowing the appeal did not record any finding that respondent no. 3 was under any danger of being evicted from the premises which he had taken on rent. He further also did not find that the respondent no. 3 was in any financial difficulty and that he was not in a position to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2 10/- to his landlord of the shop which he had occupied. Under these circumstances it appears to me that merely because respondent no. 3 was paying higher rent than what was he getting from the petitioner cannot be a circumstance for granting an application under section 21 of the Act. The view taken by me finds support from a decision of this Court reported in S.D. Varshney v. District JUdge, 1977 (U.P.) R.C.C. 349. In this case as well the learned Judge held that merely because the landlord was receiving Rs. 250/ as rent whereas he was paying Rs. 1001'- for the shop taken by his son could hardly be a ground that the need of the landlord for the shop in dispute was bona fide. Relying upon a decision of the Punjab High Court reported in Babu ram v. Narain das, 1969 (9) ILR 97 the learned counsel urged that the case of payment of higher rent by as landlord could be considered as a ground for holding that the need of a landlord is bona fide. It is true that the authority supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner but with great respect to the learned Judge who decided the said case I am unable to subscribe to the view taken therein. It is true that the authority supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner but with great respect to the learned Judge who decided the said case I am unable to subscribe to the view taken therein. To me it appears that the payment of rent at the rate higher by a landlord than what he was setting is not by itself a relevant consideration for deciding the question of bona fide requirement of a premises by a landlord. The words "bona fide requirement" mean that the landlord must have a personal need to occupy the premises. No such finding was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. As a matter of fact the respondent No. 3 was comfortably doing the business in the premises which he was occupying as a tenant. 4. For all these reasons the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 1.8 1973 is set aside and that of the Prescribed Authority is restored. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of the writ petition from the respondent no. 3.