ORDER : Satish Chandra, J. This petition is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Kanput, directing the accommodation in dispute to be released in favour of the land lady Respondent. 2. The accommodation in dispute is the ground floor of building No. 50/ 266, Modha Toli, Halsey Road, Kanpur. The Petitioner is the tenant of this accommodation. It was being used as a godown to keep the goods of his business, which is carried on in another shop nearby. Smt. Kesar Devi, Respondent No. 1, the land-lady of the accommodation, applied u/s 3 of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, for permission to file a suit for the ejectment of the Petitioner from the accommodation. She claimed that though she was residing in the remaining portion of the building, it was in sufficient for her need and she urgently required the accommodation in dispute for the residential purposes of her family. 3. The Petitioner contested the application. According to him the accommodation in dispute was land locked on three sides, without any outlet or ventilation. It was fit only to be used as a godown. It could not be used for residential purposes. The genuineness of the land-lady's need was also denied. 4. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not believe the story set up by the land-lady. He held that the accommodation in dispute was not fit for residential purposes. It was useable only as a godown. He held that though the accommodation in the possession of the land-lady was not sufficient for her needs, yet she had failed to make out a case for the eviction of the tenant from the accommodation in dispute. The application WAS accordingly dismissed. 5. The land-lady filed a revision. After the enforcement of the Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the revision was transferred to the District Judge, Kanpur, who, in his turn, transferred it to the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. The Additional District Judge held that since the land-lady has been residing in the remaining portion of the building, Explanation (iv) to Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 was attracted. Her need will, therefore, have to be held to be conclusively established. There was hence no occasion to compare the need of the land-lady with that of the tenant. Her need will, therefore, have to be held to be conclusively established. There was hence no occasion to compare the need of the land-lady with that of the tenant. On this view he allowed the application for release, though on the land lady paying one year's rent to the tenant as compensation. The tenant was granted three months' time to vacate. Aggrieved the tenant has filed the present writ petition. 6. In Gorakh Nath Yagnik v. State of U.P. 1975 ALR 22 LB this Court has held that Rule 16(1) which precludes an enquiry in cases covered by Explanation (iv) to Section 21 of the U.P. Act 12 of 1972, is ultra virus. In view of this decision it is apparent that the Additional District Judge was in error in not enquiring into the comparative needs or hardships of the parties. A perusal of his order shows that he has not compared the needs of the parties. He has also not gone into the question whether the accommodation in dispute was fit for residential purposes so as to satisfy the need of the land-lady. Consequently it is necessary to send the case back. 7. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional District Judge dated 13th April, 1973 is quashed. The matter is sent back to him for decision of the revision a fresh in accordance with law. In view of the divided success the parties will bear their own costs.