ORDER M.P. Saxena, J. - These are two petitions viz. Nos. 877 and 1271 of 1976 by Karan Singh and Smt. Phul Kumari Jain respectively against the order of the learned First Additional District Judge, Bulandshar dated 1.5.1976. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that shops Nos. 34 and 35 and Balakhana No. 36 existing over the said shops are situate in Mohatla Chowk Bazar in the town of Bulandshar. Shop No. 34 was in the occupation of Karan Singh, petitioner in writ petition No. 877 of 1976 and he was doing the business of a barber in that shop. Shop No. 35 was in the tenancy of Champa Ram against whom writ petition No. 1271 of 1976 is directed. He was doing the work of goldsmith in it. Balakhana No. 36 was in the tenancy of Gokul Chand. Smt. Phul Kumari purchased the shops and the Balakhana on 11th of May, 1970, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for her own use. Shortly thereafter she moved an application under section 3 of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947, (U.P. Act No. III of 1947) for permission to file a suit for eviction against all the there tenants on the ground that she needed the premises for her own needs. She gave out in her application that she was married to one Ramesh Chandra but he deserted her. She had to take shelter at her father's house and decided to educate herself. She passed B.A. Examination and then took studies in Ayurvedic medicines and obtained the degree of Vaidya Visharadha in the year 1964. In 1968 she passed the Ayurved Ratna Examination. In June 1909 she was registered as a Medical Practitioner by the Board of India Medicines. According to her, she wanted to settle herself in the profession of midwifery and Ayurvedic medicines but she had no accommodation for that purpose. She needed the Balakhana for her own residence, for the convenience of her-patients. The application was resisted by all the three tenants, inter alia, on the grounds that the landlady did not require the premises and that they would suffer irreparable loss in case they were evicted from their premises. 3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 21.2.1972 allowed the application under section 3 against Karan Singh and Gokul Chand in respect of the premises Nos. 3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 21.2.1972 allowed the application under section 3 against Karan Singh and Gokul Chand in respect of the premises Nos. 34 and 36 but rejected it against Champs Lal in respect of shop Nos. 35. Aggrieved by this judgment Smt. Phul Kumari filed one revision under section 3(3) of U.P. Act III of 1947 against Champa Lal. Karan Singh and Gokul Chand filed two separate revisions against the order granting permission to file a suit for their eviction. During the pendency of these revisions the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the new Act) came into force and the said revisions stood transferred to the learned District Judge. They were decided as appeals as provided under the new Act. The revision filed by Smt. Phul Kumari against Karan Singh was dismissed while the revisions filed by Karan Singh and Gokul Chand were allowed and the permission granted against them was set aside. This order was passed on 31.10.1972. I hereafter Smt. Phul Kumari filed a writ petition in this Court against all the three tenants. It was decided by this Court on 18.8.1975. The tenants plea was that Smt. Phul Kumari was living with her husband and had purchased the house by his means but this Court came to the conclusion that the husband had deserted Smt. Phul Kumari and she got no assistance from him in the matter of purchase of this building. On the other hand assistance was offered by her father. It was also held that relations between Smt. Phul Kumari and her husband were highly strained and there was no question of her availing of the accommodation belonging to or possessed by her husband. However, the learned District Judge had recorded no finding regarding need of the landlady and this Court observed : "I find that the learned District Judge committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and in dismissing the one preferred by the petitioner. But dealing with this case under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not open to him to record a finding about need of the petitioner in these proceedings. 3 and 4 and in dismissing the one preferred by the petitioner. But dealing with this case under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not open to him to record a finding about need of the petitioner in these proceedings. I have to send the case to the learned District Judge for deciding the appeal afresh after looking into the entire record." In view of the aforesaid the writ petition was allowed and the order of the District Judge dated 31.10.1972 was quashed and the District Judge was directed to dispose of the Civil Revisions (Appeal) afresh. In pursuance of the aforesaid order all the three appeals viz. Nos. 34, 39 and 43 of 1972 filed by Karan Singh Smt. Phut Kumari Jain and Champa Lal respectively came up for disposal before the learned First Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. After going through the entire material on the record he came to the conclusion that Balakhana No. 36 was genuinely required by her for her residence. As regards Sher requirement for midwifery work, he held that it can be fulfilled if only one of the shops was permitted to be occupied by her. In his opinion the shop No. 34 could fulfil her needs and there was no necessity to grant permission for eviction of Champa Lal from shop No. 35. As regards need of the tenant, he observed that it was immaterial whether the need of the tenant was greater than that of the landlord because comparison of hardships was not necessary for according permission under section 3 of the old Act. Accordingly all the three appeals were dismissed. It may be reiterated that Civil Appeals Nos. 34 and 43 of 1972 were filed by Karan Singh and Gokul Chand in respect of shop No. 34 and Balakhana No. 36 and Appeal No. 39 of 1972 was filed by Smt. Phut Kumari against her tenant Champa Lal. 4. Now Karan Singh has filed writ petition No. 877 of 1976 for quashing the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge against him and Sint. 4. Now Karan Singh has filed writ petition No. 877 of 1976 for quashing the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge against him and Sint. Phul Kumari has filed another petition No. 1211 of 1976 for quashing the same order so far as it relates to shop No. 35 in possession of Champa Lal Gokul Chand has not filed any petition impugning the correctness of this order and it has become final against him so far as Balakhana No. 36 is concerned. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides at length and have given my anxious consideration to the whole matter. Most of the points have already been set at rest by this Court in its judgment dated 18.8.1975. It has been held that Smt. Phul Kumari had been deserted by her husband and she had purchased the shops and the Balakhana without any assistance from her husband. It was also held that she has obtained high degrees in Ayurvedic medicines and she proposes to practise as a mid-wife and physician. She has no place to carry on this work. At present she is residing with her father who lives in a lane and this work cannot be carried on at that place. Besides it, there was no evidence to show that her father had sufficient accommodation in his house to give a portion of it to his daughter for carrying on her medical profession. After the remand, the learned District Judge has recorded a finding that Smt. Phul Kumari has bona fide need for Balakhana and the shop for her residence as well as for medical practice. The contention of the learned counsel for Karan Singh is that Smt. Phul Kumari has service in a primary school in Jahangirabad and has also been confirmed on that post and cannot be said to have any need for practising in Ayurvedic medicines or as a mid-wife. It carries no force. As stated by the learned District Judge, it is under compelling circumstances that Smt had to join a primary school as a teacher to maintain herself. As she did not get any shop for medical profession and she was hard pressed with money, she had to join that service such against her wishes, but the moment her properties are available to her she would start her practice. As she did not get any shop for medical profession and she was hard pressed with money, she had to join that service such against her wishes, but the moment her properties are available to her she would start her practice. There is hardly any reason to interfere with this finding. Obviously Smt. Jain possesses high qualifications in Ayurvedic system of medicines she would surely like to take advantage of the same if any accommodation is available to her. Therefore, on the ground that she has temporarily joined some service it cannot be said that she has no need for her accommodation. 6. There is, however, one infirmity in the order of the learned District Judge. Even after according at the conclusion that Smt. Jain has bona fide need for her building it was necessary for him to compare her needs with those of the tenants. There can be no manner of doubt that comparison 'of hardship between the landlord and tenant is necessary while disposing of an application under section 21 of the new Act. Under the U P. Act III of 1947 also comparison of needs was necessary as will be evident from the case of Lala Sri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, 1965 A.L.J. 353. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that while considering the application of the landlord under section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947 the District Magistrate has to give consideration to the needs of both the landlord and the tenant and to compare them. The same view was reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court is Sardar Prem Singh v. B.D. Sanwal, 1968 A.W.R. 572. In the instant case the learned Additional District Judge committed manifest error of law by not comparing the relative needs of the landlady and the tenants. Since it cannot be done by this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the case will unfortunately have to be sent back again to the First Additional District Judge for this purpose so far as, the appeals filed by Karan Singh and Smt. Phul Kumari (Rent Control Appeal Nos. 34 and 39 of 1972) are concerned. 34 and 39 of 1972) are concerned. There is yet another infirmity in the order of the learned District Judge inasmuch as while considering the need of Smt. Jain he did not enquire into the question whether the size of shop occupied by Karan Singh is sufficient to meet her requirements, or it is necessary to grant permission in respect of shop No. 35 also. 7. In the result the order of the Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 1.5.1976 so far as it relates to R.C. Appeal Nos. 34 and 39 of 1972 filed by Karan Singh and Smt. Phul Kumari are concerned, is set aside and the learned Additional District Judge is directed to dispose of both these appeals according to law keeping in mind the directions given above. The order passed against Gokul Chand in respect of Balakhana has already become final and no enquiry is to be made in this connection. Costs on parties. 8. As the matter has become old, the learned First Additional District Judge will dispose of both the appeals expeditiously. This judgment shall also govern Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1271 of 1976.