JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. This is a tenants' writ petition against the judgment of Shri S. K. Misra, Ist Additional District Judge, Jhansi, dated 8-2-1980, whereby the landlords' appeal was partly allowed. 2. Opposite party no. 2, the landlord had applied for release of the shop against the tenants' petitioners. The Prescribed Authority had dismissed the application through its order dated 23-1-1979 on the ground that the second application for release was moved by the landlord which was not maintainable under Rule 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority the landlord had filed an appeal which was allowed by the, appellate court through its order dated 8-2-1980. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court, the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the appellate court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the landlords' application for release in part without paying any heed to Rule 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 4. No one appears on behalf of the contesting opposite party. In my opinion the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners have force. Rule 18 sub-clause (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as below :- "Where an application of a landlord against a tenant under Section 21 for the release of any building or any specified part thereof or any surplus land appurtenant to such building is rejected on merits and a fresh application on the same ground is made within period of one year from that decision, the Prescribed Authority shall accept the findings in those proceedings as conclusive." 5. In the present case I find that the appellate court has allowed the application for release filed by the landlord only after comparing the needs of the parties. The first requirement for granting an application for release filed by the landlord is the bonafide need and thereafter the question of comparison of hardship between the landlord and the tenants arises. In the present case the trial court has held that in view of Rule 18, the landlord's application could not be filed as the earlier application was dismissed on 24-4-1976 and the second application has been moved in September 1976. In the present case the trial court has held that in view of Rule 18, the landlord's application could not be filed as the earlier application was dismissed on 24-4-1976 and the second application has been moved in September 1976. The judgment of the appellate court is a judgment of variance and I do not find that the appellate Court has addressed itself to the question of bonafide need of the landlord. In such a circumstance the impugned judgments suffer from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 8-2-1980 is hereby quashed and the appellate court is directed to decide the question of bonafide need of the landlord strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Rule 18 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the contesting opposite party, there would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.