JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The application made by the petitioner for staying his ejectment in pursuance of the impugned order passed under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, was listed today for orders. When the application was taken up the counsel for the parties made a joint statement that in place of hearing the application the writ petition itself may be decided. I accordingly heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner is the tenant of a building of which respondent No. 3 is the landlord. An application was made by respondent No. 3 for the release of the aforesaid building in his favour under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act This application was opposed by the petitioner and was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. Against that order an appeal was filed by respondent No. 3. The 1st Additional District Judge. Bareilly, came to the conclusion that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide. In regard to the petitioner he was of the opinion the it was not access try to consider his need in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Chindra Kumar Sah v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1976 A.W.C. 50. On the finding that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide the appal and the application under Section 21 filed by the said respondent was allowed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bareilly, on 26th of May, 1976. It is this order of the Additional District Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the order of the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained. It is this order of the Additional District Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the order of the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained. Section 21 of the Act has since been amended by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, Section 14 of the Amending Act inter alia provides that in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of tho principal Act after the third proviso the following proviso shall be inserted and shall always be deemed to have been inserted : "Provided also that the prescribed authority shall, except in 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." In view of the aforesaid newly added proviso which has been made retrospective in its operation the need of the petitioner had also to be considered before deciding the appeal. The order of the Additional District Judge deserve; to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the Additional District Judge has also come to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was entitled to the benefit of Explanation 4 to Section 21. According to him this Explanation has since been deleted and the Additional District Judge was not entitled to take this into consideration. For respondent No. 3 it has been urged that Explanation 4 has not been deleted with retrospective effect and consequently the Additional District Judge was right in taking that Explanation into consideration. Since the order of the Additional District Judge is liable to be quashed on the ground aforesaid, I am not expressing any opinion on this point. It will be open to the parties to raise the plea about the effect of Explanation IV aforesaid having been deleted before the Additional District Judge. 5. in the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bareilly dated 26th of May, 1976, is quashed and he is directed to decide the appeal afresh expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. 5. in the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bareilly dated 26th of May, 1976, is quashed and he is directed to decide the appeal afresh expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case parties will hear their own costs. A copy of this judgment may be supplied to the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 on payment of usual charges at an early date.