ORDER N.D. Ojha, J. - Respondents 5 to 9 are the legal representatives of one Smt. Bhagwanti. Respondents 2 to 4 and Smt. Bhagwanti in their capacity of being the landlords of a house situate in New "Mandi; Muzaffarnagar, which was at that time in the occupation of the petitioner as a tenant made an application on 27th February 1968 for permission to file a suit for ejectment against the petitioner under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as U P. Act No. III of 1947). This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction officer whose order was upheld on revision by the Commissioner and on a further revision by the State Government. A writ petition was filed in this Court, challenging these orders by the petitioner which was dismissed on 17th January, 1972. This order was upheld on 7th December, 1972 by a Division Bench of this Court by an order whereby the petitioner's Special Appeal was dismissed. By the time the Special Appeal was dismissed, U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was repealed by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) which came into force on 15th July, 1972. The landlords taking advantage of the new provision contained in Section 43(2)(rr) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 made an application for the ejectment of the petitioner on 10th February 1973. This application was allowed on 10th January, 1975 and the petitioner was dispossessed from the house in question. About two years thereafter the petitioner made an application under Section 24 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for being put back in possession over the house aforesaid on the ground that the landlords were using it for a purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which it was released in their favour on 10th January, 1975 by the Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 43(2)(rr). According to him the order dated 10th January, 1975 was an order under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and consequently in view of the acts stated by him his application he was entitled to the relief contemplated by Section 24 thereof . According to him the order dated 10th January, 1975 was an order under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and consequently in view of the acts stated by him his application he was entitled to the relief contemplated by Section 24 thereof . The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 3rd March, 1975 but on an appeal being filed by the landlords the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside by the District Judge on 31st May, 1978. It is this order of the District Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. Before dealing with the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, I may point out that the District Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner on two grounds (i) that the order dated 10th of January, 1976 could not be treated as an order under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 so as to attract the provisions of Section 24 thereof and (2) even on merits it had not been established that the landlords has used the house in question in any manner inconsistent, with the purpose for which it was released in their favour . 3. Counsel for the petitioner has in his submission challenged both the findings referred to above given by the District Judge, for the respondent landlords it was on the other hand urged that the finding on the first point given by the District Judge was in accordance with law and regard to the second point it was urged that the finding of the District Judge was a finding of act based on appraisal of evidence and no case had been made out for the said finding being set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that the view taken by the District Judge on the first point that the order dated 10th January, 1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority was not an order of release under Section 21 so as to attract the provisions of Section 24 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not suffer from any manifest error of law and in this view of the matter. I do not consider it necessary to consider the second submission made by counsel for the petitioner in regard to the finding of the District Judge on the merits of the case. 5. As already seen above U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was repealed by U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Section 43 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is the Section which deals with "Repeal and savings". Section 43(2)(r) and (rr) read as follows : "(r) any suit for the eviction of tenant instituted with the permission referred to in Section 3 of the old Act for any proceeding arising out of such suit, pending immediately before the commencement of the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 37 of 1972) may be continued and concluded in accordance with the old Act which shall, for that purpose, be deemed to continue to be in force. (rr) where any permission referred to in Section 3 of the old Act has been obtained on any ground specified in sub-section (1) for subsection (2) of Section 21, and has become final, either be ore the commencement of this Act, for in accordance with provisions of this sub-section, after the commencement of this Act, whether for not a suit for the eviction of the tenant has been instituted, the landlord may apply to the prescribed authority for his eviction under Section 21, and thereupon the Prescribed Authority shall order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy, and it shall not be necessary for the Prescribed Authority to satisfy itself a fresh as to existence of any ground as aforesaid and such order, shall be final and shall not be open to appeal under Section 22 : Provided that no application under this clause shall be maintainable on the basis of a permission granted under Section 3 of the old Act where such permission became final more than three years before the commencement of this Act : Provided further that in computing the period of three years, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence any civil proceeding whether in a court of first instance for appeal for revision shall be excluded. 6. 6. The only power, which was given to the District Magistrate under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was to grant permission to a landlord to file a suit for ejectment of his tenant. After the permission was granted a suit had to be instituted in the civil court on the basis of that permission for a decree for ejectment and it was the execution of that decree that the tenant could actually be evicted. Further, Section 3 did not specify any ground on the basis of which alone permission could be granted to a landlord to file a suit for ejectment of his tenant. One of the recognised grounds on which permission was normally granted by the District Magistrate was the bona fide need of the landlord of the house for his own use and occupation. Section 43(2)(r) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 saves all the suits which were instituted for the ejectment of a tenant on the basis of a permission granted under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 and which were pending immediately before commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972). Section 43(2)(rr) on the other hand as it stood after its amendment by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 permitted the landlord, in those cases where permission under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 had been obtained on any ground specified in sub-section (1) for sub-section (2) of Section 21 and had become final in the manner stated therein, to make an application to the prescribed Authority for the eviction of the tenant under Section 21. This could be done whether for not a suit had already been instituted on the basis of the permission granted under Section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947. As seen above Section 43(2)(rr), inter alia, provides that upon such an application being made the Prescribed Authority shall order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy and it shall not be necessary for the Prescribed Authority to satisfy itself afresh as to the existence of any ground as aforesaid and such order shall be final and shall not be open to appeal under Section 22. A perusal of Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 would, however, indicate that it infer alia enables the landlord to make an application for eviction of his tenant in the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after its demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family. The legal position, in regard to such an application under Section 21 is that the Prescribed Authority has to first record a finding on evidence produced by parties before it that the need of the landlord was bona fide. Thereafter it has to compare the hardship to be caused to either party in the event of the application being allowed or dismissed as the case may be and it is only if it records a finding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and that greater hardship would be caused to him in the event of the application being dismissed under Section 21 that it can allow the said application. Against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority an appeal is prescribed under Section 21 of the Act. 'Thus it is clear that the procedure as contemplated by Section 43(2)(rr) is different on almost every material point from that of an application for release made under Section 21 of that Act. It is true that Section 43(2) rr) speaks of an application being made under Section 21 but in view of the distinguishing features pointed out above it is apparent that an application under Section 43(2)(rr) is meant to be an application of the nature of an execution application to enforce the permission granted under section 3 of U. P. Act No. III of 1947. It is not an independent application under section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The view that the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under section 43(2) (rr) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are in the nature of execution proceedings wherein the Prescribed Authority has to give effect to an order in proceedings under section 3 of U. P. Act No. III of 1947 by evicting the tenant and putting the landlord into possession finds support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kastori Lal Dhingra and another v. The Prescribed Authority, Meerut and others, 1979 All. R.C. 146. R.C. 146. For the aforesaid reasons section 24 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 will not, in my opinion, apply to a case where the landlord has been put in possession over a building after evicting the tenant under Section 43(2)(rr) of the said act in execution of an order passed under section 3 of U. P. Act III of 1947. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that section 24 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not attracted to the acts of the instant case and since this is the view which has been taken by the District Judge also his order does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed with costs.