JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a landlay's petition arising out of proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The petitioner is the owner of House No. 5/114 old Kanpur in the town of Kanpur. 3. She was a resident of village Teera Tehsil Derapur in the same district and her husband was employed in the Army. In view of her husband's retirement she purchased the said house in October 1971 for her own occupation and at that time got possession over one room and one Kothri. On 13.11.72 her husband retired from the Army Service and she along with her husband and other members of the family came to Kanpur to live in the disputed house. At that time four tenants including opposite party No. 1 were living in four different portions of this house. On the request of the petitioner three of the tenants vacated their respective tenements and an application for its release under section 16(l) (b) of the Act was moved before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. The opposite party No. 1 was also requested to vacate as the petitioner had bona fide need for that portion but he refused to do so. The opposite party No. 1 occupied only two small rooms. On 2.4.1973 the petitioner moved an application under section 21 of the Act for release of the portion in possession of opposite party No. 1 on the ground of bona fide need alleging that her family consisted of seven members and the accommodation in her possession comprised of two shall rooms, three Kothris and one kitchen with common amenities. She also claimed the benefit of Explanations (ii) and (iv) to section 21 of the Act as they existed at that time. The benefit of Explanation (ii) was claimed on the ground that her husband was in Army Service, away from the city of Kanpur, and by reason of retirement had come down to live with her. The benefit of Explanation (iv) was claimed on the ground that she was already in possession of one room and one kitchen with common amenities and had moved release application in respect of three Kothris which were also likely to be released in her favour. 4. The benefit of Explanation (iv) was claimed on the ground that she was already in possession of one room and one kitchen with common amenities and had moved release application in respect of three Kothris which were also likely to be released in her favour. 4. The opposite party No. 1 contested that application on the grounds that the landlady had no bona fide need and was not entitled to the benefit of Explanations (ii) and (iv). It was also alleged that greater hardship will be caused to him from the grant of the application than will be caused to the land- lady from the refusal of the application. 5. After going through the material on the record the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the landlady had four small rooms and two Kothris in good condition, but the remaining rooms were in bad condition. He extended the benefit of Explanation (iv) to the landlady allowed the release application but granted six months 'time to the opposite party No. 1 for vacating the house in question. This order was passed on 19th December, 1973. Both the landlady and the opposite party No. 1 filed appeals under section 22 of the Act. The learned Second Additional District Judge, Kanpur, by his judgment dated 19-2-1975 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 and dismissed the appeal filed by the landlady. He held that the application under section 21 of the Act was moved on 2.4.1973 and till then the three portions vacated by the tenants were not released in favour of the landlady. Therefore, she was not entitled to the benefit of Explanation (iv). He completely ignored the provision of Explanation (ii) to section 21. Even this fact was not taken into consideration that the opposite party No. 1 was already dispossessed under section 23 of the Act on 4-9-1974 and the entire house was being used by the landlady for residential purposes. The landlady has, therefore, filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the learned District Judge. 6. It may be stated here that the opposite party No. 1 who was dispossessed from the building in dispute on 4-9-1974 has not appeared to contest the writ petition. The landlady has, therefore, filed this writ petition for quashing the order passed by the learned District Judge. 6. It may be stated here that the opposite party No. 1 who was dispossessed from the building in dispute on 4-9-1974 has not appeared to contest the writ petition. He was dispossessed because during the pendency of the appeal he did not obtain stay order from the District Judge and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was executed under section 23 of the Act. That portion is in possession of the petitioner as is evident from her affidavit and has not been allotted to any one. 7. The material on the record makes it clear that the petitioner had purchased this house in October 1971 for residential purposes and was able to get possession over one room and one Kothri. At that time four tenants were in possession of the remaining portion of house. The husband of the petitioner was employed in the Army and retired on 13.1 1.1972. There is no controversy that the family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband, three daughters aged 20, 17 and 10 years (in 1913) and two sons. The accommodation in her possession consisted one room and one kitchen. On 15.6.1973 the portions vacated by three tenants were released in her favour and she came in possession of three more rooms. As such, she became in possession of four small rooms and kitchen etc. The application for release against opposite party No. 1 was decided by the Prescribed Authority on 19.12.1973, when the petitioner had come in possession of three more rooms vacated by three tenants. The learned District Judge was wrong in holding that Explanation (iv) was not applicable to this case because the landlady was not in possession of the portion vacated by the tenants on the date of making the application. The Prescribed Authority decided the application on 19-12-73 and on that date she was admittedly in possession of this portion. This fact along with the fact that she was already in possession of one room and kitchen and was sharing certain amenities commonly was sufficient to apply Explanation (iv). The Prescribed Authority decided the application on 19-12-73 and on that date she was admittedly in possession of this portion. This fact along with the fact that she was already in possession of one room and kitchen and was sharing certain amenities commonly was sufficient to apply Explanation (iv). The Prescribed Authority had rightly done so but as held in Smt. Smiriti Marthand v. District Judge, Kumaun, Nainital, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1483, comparative hardship of landlord and tenant must be taken into account notwithstanding the fact that the case fell under Explanation (iv) to section 21. It was based on the view that amendment of Explanation 4 is retrospective. In any case her application could be considered under Section 21(a) only and after considering bona fide need and comparative hardship necessary orders could be passed but the learned District Judge failed to do so and committed manifest error of law. 8. Explanation (ii) to Section 21 has also been deleted by the Amending Act 28 of 1976 which came into force on 5.7.1976. Prior to the amendment it read : - "Where the landlord was engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment away from the city, municipality, notified area or town area within which the building is situate and by reason of the cessation of such engagement he needs the building for occupation by himself for residential purposes for such need shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of clause (a)". In my judgment the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of this Explanation because it contemplates cessation of employment of the landlord. In the instant case the landlord or landlady is the petitioner and she was not in service or has retired. Her husband who has retired is not the landlord. Hence the Explanation (ii) was not applicable. However, as stated above, the application of the landlady could be considered under section 21(i)(a) and if she established bona fide need and greater hardship the disputed house could be released in her favour. The Prescribed Authority found favour with her contention and allowed the release application. The learned District Judge for no satisfactory reasons set aside that order. It is worth stating that the opposite party No. 1 had only two rooms in his possession and he had vacated them in September 1974 in execution of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority found favour with her contention and allowed the release application. The learned District Judge for no satisfactory reasons set aside that order. It is worth stating that the opposite party No. 1 had only two rooms in his possession and he had vacated them in September 1974 in execution of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Now the landlady is in possession of those rooms. The opposite party No. 1 has not appeared to contest this writ petition. He has not taken any steps for restoration of possession. It appears that he is no more interested in this property. Therefore, there is no question of any hardship to him. On the other hand the landlady has a big family and the accommodation in her possession is too small. 9. As held by the Prescribed Authority she has bona fide need for additional accommodation and will suffer considerable hardship if it is not released in her favour. 10. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19-2-1975 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Kanpur, is quashed. The petitioner will bear her own costs.