JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - The landlord made an application under section 21 (1) (ai of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he needed the accommodation for his own use. The tenant contested the application pleading that the need of the landlord was not bona fide as the accommodation at his disposal was sufficient for his need. The Prescribed Authority held that Explanation IV of Section 21 (1) (a) was attracted to the case. He accordingly allowed the application and directed that the tenant be ejected. The learned District Judge affirmed the view taken by the Prescribed Authority. 2. The only question canvassed in the present case was that the Prescribed Authority was bound to consider the comparative need of the parties. It was contended that Explanation IV could not be pressed into service as it has been deleted by U. P. Act 28 of 1976. The argument is untenable. It is not in dispute that when the application giving rise to the present petition was moved Explanation IV was a part of the statute. The aforesaid Amendment Act of 1976 is not retrospective in its operation as held by a Bench of this Court in Gopi Nath Goel v. 1st Addl. District Judge and another (Civil Misc. Writ No. 366 of 1970), decided on 25th March, 1977. It is not disputed that on facts Explanation IV was attracted as the accommodation of which the remaining part was in the use and occupation of the landlord, apart from the entire ground floor. Since the case was covered by Explanation IV there could be no question of examining the comparative hardship of the parties and respondent No. 3 was entitled to an order in his favour as laid down by the Supreme Court in Muhd. Shafi v. Seventh Addl. District and Sessions Judge Allahabad and others, 1977 A.L.R. 170. 3. I have decided the case on merit but it appears that the writ petition has actually become infructuous. The respondent on 16-8-1976 filed an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has been transferred from Muzaffarnagar to Dehradun where he took over charge in the month of July, 1976. No counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, The petitioner has, it appears, vacated the premises on his being transferred from Muzafar Nagar. Apparently the petition has become infructuous. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, The petitioner has, it appears, vacated the premises on his being transferred from Muzafar Nagar. Apparently the petition has become infructuous. 4. The petition is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.