( 1 ) HEARD petitioners counsel Sri R. B. Slnghal. Sri A. K. Srivastava is present for the caveator-landlord.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the house in question which is admittedly in the tenancy of the petitioner. This application was contested by the petitioner. The application for release has been allowed mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 4 is a Major in Indian Army and, therefore, the case is covered by Explanation (iii) of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The said explanation is in the nature of an exception which has the effect of lifting the rigour of proving the bona fide need by the landlord, who is a serving or retired Indian Soldier as defined under the indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925. The need of the landlord on the existence of the conditions envisaged under such Explanation is to be deemed sufficient by a legal fiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that respondent No. 4 is an Indian Soldier as defined under the Act referred to in the aforesaid Explanation. The finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below further is that th