( 1 ) THIS petition under S. 50 of the Rent Control Act by the tenant is directed against the order made, by the Dist. Judge at Mandya in HRCA no. 1 of 1971, whereby the order of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna in HRC no. 5 of 1969 was set aside and a decree for eviction as prayed for by the landlord passed. ( 2 ) THE premises in question is being used for a commercial purpose by the tenant. The case of the landlord has been principally based on two grounds which fall within the purview of Cls. (b) and (h) of S. 21 (1) of the Rent Control Act. The trial Court rejected the petition of the landlord. In appeal, the learned Dist. Judge accepted the case of the landlord on both the grounds pleaded. Therefore, he made a decree for eviction against the tenant. ( 3 ) IN regard to comparative hardship, the consideration of which is made mandatory in view of S. 21 (4) of the Rent Control Act, the learned diat. Judge approached the question on the assumption that the burden lay on the tenant to show that in case a decree for eviction is passed he was likely to suffer greater hardship. It is on the basis of this conclusion Sri t. J. Chouta, the learned Counsel fqr the petitioner, urged in the forefront of his ease that the learned Dist. Judge was clearly in error in the light of the principles enunciated in two decisions of the Supreme Court, the last of which is Phiraea Basmanji Desai v. Chandrakant N. Patel. On giving my careful consideration to the matter, I am clearly of the view that this contention deserves to be upheld. In this view, it is unnecessary for me to examine the other ground on which the order of eviction has been passed. ( 4 ) IN the aforesaid case the Supreme Court was concerned with a case under the Bombay Rents", Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act (1947 ). While considering the said case their Lordships referred to a case which directly arose under S. 21 (4) of the present Rent Control Act. It is central Tobacco Co. v. Chandra Prakash. They held that what applied to the Central Tobacco case would equally apply to case arising under s. 13 (2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. While considering the said case their Lordships referred to a case which directly arose under S. 21 (4) of the present Rent Control Act. It is central Tobacco Co. v. Chandra Prakash. They held that what applied to the Central Tobacco case would equally apply to case arising under s. 13 (2) of the Bombay Rent Control Act. The passage in the Central tobacco case extracted in that decision reads thus :" We do not find ourselves able to accept the broad proposition that as soon as the landlord establishes his need for additional accommodation he is relieved of all further obligation under S. 21, sub-sec. (4) and that once the landlord's need is accepted by the Court all further evidence must be adduced by the tenant if he claims protection under the Act. Each party must adduce evidence to show that hardship would be caused to him by granting or refusal of the decree and it will be for the Court to determine whether the suffering of the tenant, in case a decree was made would be more than that of the landlord by its refusal. "in the instant case, it is plain from the order impugned that the learned dist. Judge has assumed that the burden was primarily on the, tenant to show that he, would be likely to suffer grater hardship. This assumption clearly flies in the teeth of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the order under revision cannot be sustained. ( 5 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order made by the Dist. Judge of Mandya in HRCA No. 1 of 1971 is hereby set aside. The matter will stand remitted to that Court for a fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein. It is to be made clear that all questions arising in the appeal are not at large for a fresh decision by the Court. No costs. --- *** --- .