ORDER A. N. Verma, J. -This is a landlords petition directed against concurrent orders passed by the courts below rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Cls. (a) and (b) of Section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the eviction of four different tenants, who are arrayed in this petition as respondents Nos. 2 to 6. 2. This petition was heard and disposed of ex parte by my judgment dated 1st May, 1980. Later on upon an application moved on behalf of the petitioner, the ex parte judgment was set aside by me. On 2-7-1980, I heard counsel for both the parties and upon conclusion of the arguments I had reserved the judgment. 3. These are the facts. The petitioner is admittedly the owner and landlord of the buildings in question, which are in the tenancy of the said respondents. The petitioner filed a composite application under clauses (a) and (b) against all the four tenants on the ground that he bona fide required the accommodation for his personal occupation after the buildings have been demolished and reconstructed. It was asserted that the buildings in question were in a dilapidated condition and were required for being demolished and reconstructed. 4. The application was contested by the tenants. They denied that the landlord bona fide required the accommodation in dispute either for occupation by himself or the members of the family or for demolition and reconstruction. It was asserted that the landlord was comfortably settled in Bombay where he had substantial business engagements. It was asserted that the landlord was residing in Bombay with his family for a considerable length of time and had no intention of settling down at Mathura, where the accommodation in dispute is situate. 5. In support of their respective versions, both the landlord and the tenants filed various affidavits and documents. The reports of Experts who examined the buildings were also filed as regards the condition of the buildings. 6. Upon a consideration of the entire material on the record, the Prescribed Authority held that though the premises in question were old. they were not in a dilapidated condition, nor were they required for being demolished and reconstructed. The Prescribed Authority also held that the landlord did not bona fide require the accommodation for occupation by himself or members of his family. they were not in a dilapidated condition, nor were they required for being demolished and reconstructed. The Prescribed Authority also held that the landlord did not bona fide require the accommodation for occupation by himself or members of his family. and that in any case, upon a comparison of relative hardship, it is the tenants who were bound to suffer more than the landlord. With these findings the application was rejected. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed four appeals which have all been disposed of by the learned District Judge, Mathura, by a common order which is the subject of challenge in this writ petition. The learned District Judge as well as the Prescribed Authority have both upon a consideration of the evidence on record recorded a finding that the building in question is not in a dilapidated condition, and that it is not required for being demolished and reconstructed. The learned District Judge in order to satisfy himself as to the true state of the buildings himself made a local inspection. The learned District Judge agreed with the findings of the Prescribed Authority on the issues involved and dismissed the appeals of the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the petitioner assailed before me the findings of the courts below in regard to the petitioners prayer made in the aforesaid application under both the clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 of the aforesaid U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that whereas the decision of the courts below on the plea of the petitioner under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) is perfectly correct and calls for no interference by this Court, the decision of the learned District Judge on the case of the petitioner under clause (b) requires reconsideration. 10. I shall first dispose of the petitioners case under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. In regard to the findings of the courts below under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, the main contention of the Petitioner's counsel was that the petitioner as the owner and landlord had an unqualified right to start any business or settle down anywhere he liked. In regard to the findings of the courts below under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, the main contention of the Petitioner's counsel was that the petitioner as the owner and landlord had an unqualified right to start any business or settle down anywhere he liked. The fact, therefore, that the petitioner was found comfortably residing and doing business in Bombay, could not stand in the way of the petitioner to demand eviction of the tenants from the premises in question. I do not agree. The argument completely ignores the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which restricts and regulates the rights of the landlord to occupy his property. The contention also runs counter to the law as settled by a string of authorities both of the Supreme Court and of this Court to the effect that an application under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be granted on the mere whims and fancies of the landlord. A demand for eviction must be founded on something more concrete than a mere desire of the landlord. The landlord must bona fide require the accommodation. There must be present some pressing need and compelling grounds before the tenant can be asked to quit. In the present case, the concurrent finding of both the courts below is that there is no such need, and that the eviction of the tenant is being demanded by the landlord on grounds which are not genuine. There is, therefore, no substance in the first point. 11. The courts below have both found that the landlord is comfortably settled in Bombay, that his plea that the climate of Bombay does not suit the landlord, is not worthy of credence. In any case, on the findings of the courts below that the petitioner still has available with him vast land belonging to him lying vacant around the accommodation, and that if the landlord had really been serious and sincere about his building plans, he could have gone ahead with the same without disturbing the tenants. This finding is a complete answer to the plea of the landlord under clause (a) of S. 21 (1) of the Act. 12. The petitioner is, however, on a firmer ground so far as the grievance' against the finding of the learned District Judge under clause (b) of Section 21 (1) of the Act is concerned. This finding is a complete answer to the plea of the landlord under clause (a) of S. 21 (1) of the Act. 12. The petitioner is, however, on a firmer ground so far as the grievance' against the finding of the learned District Judge under clause (b) of Section 21 (1) of the Act is concerned. On the state of the building, both the parties had adduced experts evidence. The experts differed as usual. The District Judge, therefore, felt the need for a local inspection and he did make one. A copy of the inspection note has been annexed to the writ petition, and is marked as Annexure "II". In the inspection note, the District Judge has noted in some detail facts relating to the state of the building. The issue whether the building was in a dilapidated condition had to be decided objectively with reference to the data available on the record pertaining to the state of the building. I, however, find that the learned District Judge has disposed of this issue in a very general way. He has not even adverted to some vital facts noted by himself in course of local inspection. In the inspection note, I find that at one place, the learned District Judge has observed that the building was worn out and was likely to fall shortly. He has observed as follows:- I also inspected these Kothris from the back side and found that the back side wall was full of Iona and could give way or fall down after a short time. The Kothris of Keshav Deo and Shyam Lal had no door leaves but doors of bamboos had been placed. The floor of these Kotharis was Kuchcha. Keshav Deo admittedly is in service at Morena but his mother Kishan was living here and this Kothri was being used of keeping Bhusa and cow dung cakes etc. 13. The learned District Judge has obviously omitted to consider his own inspection note in giving a finding that the building is not a dilapidated one. The learned District Judge has ignored I the experts evidence on the short ground that they are contradictory. 13. The learned District Judge has obviously omitted to consider his own inspection note in giving a finding that the building is not a dilapidated one. The learned District Judge has ignored I the experts evidence on the short ground that they are contradictory. The fact that the two experts differed or that the learned District Judge himself had inspected the building, did not relieve the District Judge from the obligation to consider the experts evidence or the other evidence adduced by the parties with regard to the state of the building. The learned District Judge ought to have assessed the evidence brought on the record as to the state of the building in the light of the inspection note. He could have rejected the evidence of one party or relied on that of the other on the basis of what he himself observed. The learned District Judge appears to have been of the view that because of the local inspection made by him, it was not necessary for him to consider any other evidence on the record. That was obviously a wrong approach. The inspection undertaken by the learned District Judge ought to have been used only as an aid to assess the evidence on record. It could not automatically wipe out the other evidence existing on the record. 14. Furthermore, the learned District Judge has disposed of the above issue on the basis of such general observations as these:- "In this connection, it is also noteworthy that these premises are not very decent accommodation but are simple and ordinary accommodation occupied by poor persons......... " "It may be that in due course of time, these accommodations are ultimately bound to fall down after a few years but in their existing condition, it cannot be said that they are dilapidated or that they are likely to fall down soon " 15. The finding of the learned District Judge on the issue whether the building is in a dilapidated condition or not, requires reconsideration in view of what has been stated above. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the finding of the learned District Judge that some of the tenants were not using the building in question, the petitioners application should have been allowed at least as against such tenants. The argument is misconceived. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in view of the finding of the learned District Judge that some of the tenants were not using the building in question, the petitioners application should have been allowed at least as against such tenants. The argument is misconceived. The application of the landlord could be allowed only if it had been found that the building in question was bona fide required by him for occupation by himself, whether in its existing condition or after reconstruction, or that the building was in a dilapidated condition which was required for demolition and reconstruction. These questions having been answered against the petitioner, the application under Section 21 of the Act could not be allowed on the mere ground that some of the tenants were not themselves using the accommodation. 17. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the decision of the courts below rejecting the petitioners application under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the aforesaid Act is affirmed and shall not be open for a reconsideration upon remand. The finding of the learned District Judge as regards the case of the petitioner under cl. (b) of Section 21 (1) of the Act is, however, set aside for a reconsideration. The learned District Judge should reconsider the issue on the basis of concrete material on the record as to the state of the building in the light of the tests laid down in various decisions of this Court as regards when a building may be treated as in dilapidated condition within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 21 (1) of the aforesaid U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. 18. In view of what has been stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed, subject to the observations made hereinabove. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Mathura for being disposed of according to law having regard to the observations made hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs.