JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri B.N.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.11.1997 rejecting petitioner's application for release of premises in dispute by submitting an application under Section 21(1)(a) and 21(1-A) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and appellate order dated 16.02.2005 dismissing the appeal. 3. The Court below found that so far as Section 21(1-A) is concerned it has no application in the present case as the petitioner admittedly attained age of superannuation and retired on 31st July, 1982 and the application in question for release of accommodation was filed on 13th May, 1988. Sub Section 1-A of Section 21 reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2, the prescribed authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from any building under tenancy, if it is satisfied that the landlord of such building was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of the cessation? of his employment : Provided that an application under this sub-section may also be given by a landlord in occupation of such public building at any time within a period of one year before the expected date of cessation of his employment, but the order of eviction on such application shall take effect only on the date of his actual cessation." 4. Admittedly, petitioners' predecessor Sri Vidhyadhar Shukla having retired in 1982, there was no question of eviction from any "public building for residential purposes" in 1988 and none has been mentioned in application filed by landlord. Hence the Courts below have rightly held that application of landlord under Section 21(1-A) a was not maintainable. So far as Section 21(1)(a) is concerned, both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact that landlord has failed to prove bona fide personal need and therefore release application deserve to be rejected. These are findings of fact, which are not shown perverse or contrary to record, warrant no interference. 5. Dismissed. 6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.