JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition against the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge and the prescribed Authority. The writ petition was earlier dismissed by case of relying on a Full Bench decision of this court to the case of Chandra Kumar Shan v. District Judge, 1976 Alld. W. C. 50. The aggrieved party went up in appeal before the Supreme Court and the case has been remanded by the Supreme Court in view of an amendment in the relevant law. It is thus that the case has come up again before us. 2. The relevant facts can very briefly be stated as under :- 3. Satish Prakash Saxena, respondent No. 3, filed an application under section 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of the premises in question on the ground that the same was required by him for his occupation. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority, however, found that the need of the respondent No. 3 was bona fide and, on this finding, allowed the application. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge under section 22 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal concurred with the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and, in the result, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition 4. When the writ petition came up for consideration before one of us, it was pointed out that, in view of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Chandra Kamar Shah v. District Judge (supra) it is only the bona fide requirement of the landlord which is to be taken into consideration and that the comparative need of the tenant is not to be taken into account. This Court found that the bona fide requirement of respondent No. 3 had been taken into consideration by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the learned Additional District Judge and consequently dismissed the writ petition as devoid of substances. After the Full Bench decision, however, the law has been changed. This Court found that the bona fide requirement of respondent No. 3 had been taken into consideration by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the learned Additional District Judge and consequently dismissed the writ petition as devoid of substances. After the Full Bench decision, however, the law has been changed. A clause has been inserted in Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 which read as follows : "Provided also that the Prescribed Authority shall, except in cases provided for in the Explanation, taken into account of the likely hardship to the tenants 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." 5. The factors to be taken into account have been prescribed in Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act. 6. In view of the aforesaid amendment which has been given retrospective effect, the Supreme Court has remanded the case with a direction that the writ should he opposed of in the light of the amended section 21 read with rule 16. 7. The effect of the amendment introduced in section 21 is that the comparative need of the tenant has to be taken into account along with the bona fide requirement of the landlord. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as also of the Prescribed Authority, we find that the comparative need of the petitioner has not been taken into account by them. The decisions of the aforesaid authorities, therefore, stand vitiated on account of non-compliance of a mandatory provision of law. The petition has, therefore, to be allowed. 8. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 29-3-1973 passed by the Additional District Nudge, Kanpur, is quashed and the case is remanded with the direction that the learned Additional District Judge should decide the matter afresh after taking into account the comparative needs of the parties and such further questions as may be raised by either party. 9. No order is made as to costs.