JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The petitioner is the tenant of an accommodation and respondent No. 3 is its landlord. An application was made by respondent No. 3 for release of the said accommodation under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority after considering the respective needs of the parties came to the conclusion that the need of the petitioner was greater and pressing as compared to that of respondent No. 3, on this finding, he dismissed the application on 23rd October, 1975. Against that order, an appeal was filed by respondent No. 3. The IV Additional District Judge, who decided the appeal, relying on a decision of this Court, took the view that it was wrong on the part of the Prescribed Authority to have considered the need of the petitioner also. According to the Additional District Judge, if once the need of the landlord was held to be bona fide the application under section 21 deserved to be allowed without going into the need of the for tenant. On this view, he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the tire, Prescribed Authority on 13th April, 1976. It is this order of the Additional District Judge which is sought to be quashed in this Writ Petition. 2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the Additional District Judge committed a manifest error of law in taking the view that it was not necessary to consider the need of the petitioner at all while deciding the application under section 21 of the Act. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that there is substance in this submission. Section 21 of the Act has since been amended by U.P. Act 28 of 1976. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that there is substance in this submission. Section 21 of the Act has since been amended by U.P. Act 28 of 1976. Section 14 of the amending Act, inter alia provides that in sub-section 1 of section 21 of the principal Act after the third proviso thereto the following proviso shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted namely, "Provided also that the prescribed authority shall, except cases provided for in the Explanation, take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed." 4. It is not the case of either party that the Explanation referred to in the newly added proviso is attracted to the facts of the instant case. In view of the newly added proviso which has been made retrospective its operation, it was incumbent on the Additional District Judge to have considered the need of the petitioner also and to have compared it with that of the respondent No. 3 for the purposes of coming to the conclusion as to which party would be put to greater hardship in the event of the application under section 21 being allowed or dismissed as the case may be. Since the Additional District Judge has not done so, his order cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad, dated 13th April, 1976 is quashed and he is directed to decide the appeal afresh expeditiously in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.