JUDGMENT

SEN, J. :— After hearing learned. counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was clearly in error in interfering with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi and that of the II Additional District Judge, Varanasi by which they allowed the application made by the appellant under S. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting; Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Although the Authorities on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and he was entitled to the release of the demised premises under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent are displaced persons and the Authorities held that since the appellant was living in rented premises there was no reason why he should be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his own property.

2. In Bhaichand Ratanshi v. Laxmishanker Tribhovan, (1981) 3 SCC 502, this Court interpreting the analogous provisions in S. 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 observed :

"The Legislature by enacting Section 13(2) of the Act seems to strike