JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Dharmendra D. Dubey, Advocate for respondent. 3. The landlord's application filed under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 24.01.1995 but in appeal the same has been set aside by Lower Appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Allahabad vide judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 observing that though the landlord had actually failed to prove his case under both the provisions before Prescribed Authority yet it has been allowed, therefore, it has committed manifest error of law. The findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court, reads as under: ^^bl ekeys esa edkunku us mDr nksuksa esa ls fdlh izkfo/kku ds laca/k esa viuk i{k izLrqr djus esa lQy ugha gks ldk FkkA ,slh n'kk esa voj U;k;ky; dks izR;FkhZ edkunkj dk vkosnu [kkfjt djuk pkfg, FkkA mUgksaus vkosnd dks Lohdkj djds U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ugha fd;k gS rFkk vihy esa cy gS] Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA** English Translation by the Court "In the present case, the landlord had failed to put forth his stand in respect of both the aforesaid provisions. In such a circumstance, the lower court ought to have dismissed the application of the defendant landlord. It has not passed a justifiable order by accepting the application and hence, the appeal being full of merit is liable to be allowed." 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the reason assigned by Lower Appellate Court in reversing the order of Prescribed Authority is patently erroneous and is a clear misreading of the order. 5. After discussing the question of bona fide need, in para 10 of Prescribed Authority's order, it has recorded its finding on the question of bona fide need, as under: ^^blls izkFkhZ dh vko';drk lkfcr gksrh gSA** English Translation by the Court "This proves the need of the applicant." 6. 5. After discussing the question of bona fide need, in para 10 of Prescribed Authority's order, it has recorded its finding on the question of bona fide need, as under: ^^blls izkFkhZ dh vko';drk lkfcr gksrh gSA** English Translation by the Court "This proves the need of the applicant." 6. Thereafter it has considered the question of comparative hardship and again in para 10 it has recorded finding in favour of landlord as under: ^^bl izdkj izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj gksus ls esjh jk; esa izkFkhZ dks vf/kd dfBukbZ gks ldrh gSA** English Translation by the Court "Hence, the rejection of application may , in my opinion, cause greater hardship to the applicant." 7. From para 11 and onwards the Prescribed Authority has considered question, whether the building in question is in dilapidated condition and there is a need for reconstruction by demolishing the same and in this regard in para 13 of the judgment it says: ^^vr% Hkou th.kZ&'kh.kZ voLFkk esa gSA** English Translation by the Court "Hence, the house is in dilapidated condition." 8. In para 15 of the question, whether building is in dilapidated condition and need be demolished, it has recorded its finding as under: ^^15- mijksDr foospu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us viuh U;k;ksfpr vko';drk dks Hkh lkfcr fd;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ }kjk ;g Hkh lkfcr fd;k x;k gS fd Hkou th.kZ 'kh.kZ voLFkk esa gS vkSj Hkou fxjkdj u;s fljs ls fuekZ.k dh vko';drk gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA** English Translation by the Court "15. It is clear from the aforesaid argument that the applicant has also established his justifiable need and the applicant has also proved that the house is in dilapidated condition, necessitating it to be demolished and re-constructed afresh. Hence, the application of the applicant is liable to be allowed." 9. Thus both the grounds on which release was sought by petitioners-landlord were proved as per the findings recorded by Prescribed Authority and, therefore, it allowed release application but it appears that Lower Appellate Court has clearly misread the judgment so as to record the aforesaid findings that landlord failed to prove his case on both the grounds. The judgment of Lower Appellate Court, therefore, cannot sustains. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment of Lower Appellate Court, therefore, cannot sustains. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Lower Appellate Court's judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 53 of 1995 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to Lower Appellate Court to decide aforesaid appeal afresh in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.