Judgment

P. N. BHAGWATI, J.- This appeal arises out of an application filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for eviction of the appellant under S. 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority, who heard the application, took the view that the bona fide requirement of Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 was not established and on this view, rejected the application of Respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The District Judge, in appeal, however, disagreed with the view taken by the Prescribed Authority and came to the conclusion that the bona fide requirements of Respondents Nos 2 to 5 was established on the evidence on record and in any event, by reason of Expln. (iv) to S. 21, it must be conclusively presumed that they bona fide required the premises for their own use and occupation. Since, according to the learned District Judge, the case fell within Expln. (iv) to S. 21, he held that R. 16 (1) of the Rules framed under the Act which requires the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant to be taken into account was not applicable, and passed an order of eviction against the appellant. The appellant thereupon preferred a writ p