B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner moved an application for release of the house under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 regarding house No. 6, State Bank Colony, Sadabad Gate, Hathras, annexure-2 to the writ petition. The application for release was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 23. 11. 1998. Annexure-5 to the writ petition (being case No. 17 of 1995 ). Against that order the respondent No. 2 preferred appeal No. 33 of 1998 under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The said appeal has been allowed on 12. 5. 1999. Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The respondent No. 2 has been served but is not come tc oppose the petition. ( 3 ) IT has been argued by Sri P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed house was constructed by the petitioner in the year 1979 and it was first assessed to the tax from 1. 4. 1980. That the petitioner was living in the house. That the petitioner is employee of State bank of India and was posted in Hathras. That in the year 1982, he was transferred from Hathras to Mainpuri. Because of the transfer, he shifted his family to Mainpuri and let out the house to the respondent No. 2 in the year 1982. ( 4 ) IT is further alleged that the petitioner was transferred back to State Bank of India, Hathras in the year 1994. That he had no place to live in the Hathras and, therefore, he took the house at a rental of Rs. 1, 100 per month for his residence in Hathras and moved an application for release in the year 1995. That the petitioner has finally retired from the service in the year 1996 and he could not afford to pay the rent of Rs. 1, 100 per month. That therefore, he has bona fide need of the house in dispute for his residence. ( 5 ) THE learned prescribed authority has recorded the finding of bona Jide need in favour of the petitioner and also that the hardship is in his favour. 1, 100 per month. That therefore, he has bona fide need of the house in dispute for his residence. ( 5 ) THE learned prescribed authority has recorded the finding of bona Jide need in favour of the petitioner and also that the hardship is in his favour. However, the appellate Court in the appeal took the view that U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in dispute as the house was constructed in the year 1982. That therefore, the application under Section 21 [1) (a)is not maintainable. On the basis of this finding, the appeal was allowed and the application for release was dismissed. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the house was constructed in the year 1979 arid its first assessment took place from 1. 4. 1980 as is apparent from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. That the date of the construction of the house according to the Explanation I to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act is the date on which the building is first assessed by the local authority. It is contended that first assessment took place in the year 1980. The application for release was filed in the year 1995 and, therefore, the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 apply to the premises in dispute. ( 7 ) I agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The date of first assessment is 1. 4. 1980 and, therefore, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is applicable to the premises in dispute on the date the application for release was moved. The first appellate court has erred in taking a contrary view. ( 8 ) AS regard the bona JTde need, the facts mentioned above show that the need of the petitioner is bona Jide. He let out the premises to the respondent No. 2 on his transfer from Hathras. He has retired and has settled in Hathras. Therefore, there is borta fide requirement of the house in dispute for the residence of petitioner and his family. ( 9 ) THE hardship is also in favour of the petitioner. He has retired from service from the State bank of India. A retired person cannot afford to pay a rent of Rs. 1,100 per month whereas the respondent No. 2 can easily take some other accommodation rent. ( 9 ) THE hardship is also in favour of the petitioner. He has retired from service from the State bank of India. A retired person cannot afford to pay a rent of Rs. 1,100 per month whereas the respondent No. 2 can easily take some other accommodation rent. ( 10 ) THE petition is accordingly allowed and the order of the appellate court passed in appeal No. 33 of 1998, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, dated 12. 5. 1999 is quashed and that of the prescribed authority dated 23. 11. 1998 passed in P. A. Case No. 17 of 1995, Annexure-5 to the writ petition is restored. .