JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Dehradun dated 8.7.1977 allowing partly on appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 10. 2. Respondents 1 to 10 were the owners of a house No. 142 Nashvilla Road, Dehradhun. It had been let out to two tenants. One of the portions had been let out to T.H. Zaidi, the petitioner and the other to Sri J.C. Tripathi, respondents 12. An application was filed by the respondents for release of the premises as against both the tenants claiming that the same was required by Lt. Col. Vijay Prakash and Dr. Satya Prakash, respondents 8 and 10 for their residence. The landlords claimed that Col. Vijay Prakash, and Dr. Satya Prakash, who were residing at Chandigarh wanted to shift to Dehradun from the rented house taken at Chandigarh and wanted to lead retired life at Dehradun. 3. The application was contested by the petitioner as well as J.C. Tripathi, respondent 12. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application against which the respondents 1 to 10 preferred an appeal use Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The appeal was partly allowed by the impugned order dated 8.7.1977.. The release application made as against the petitioner was allowed and the portion in possession of the petitioner was released in favour of the landlords for the residence of Lt. Col. Vijay Prakash and Dr. Satya Prakash. The release application made as against J.C. Tripathi, respondent No. 12 was rejected. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the learned District Judge, T.H. Zaidi, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition. 4. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner T.H. Zaidi was previously posted as Assistance Excise Commissioner at Dehradun and at the time when the application under Section 21 was filed, he had been retired compulsorily from service. He had however, made a representation against the order to the State Government. During the pendency of this writ petition in this Court Shri Zaidi was reinstated and was transferred from Dehradun to Captainganj, in Deoria. Keeping this fact into account, we have now to consider whether the need of the landlords was genuine and secondly whether the landlords would have suffered greater hardship in case the application filed by them would have been rejected. 5. Keeping this fact into account, we have now to consider whether the need of the landlords was genuine and secondly whether the landlords would have suffered greater hardship in case the application filed by them would have been rejected. 5. So far as the bonafide requirement of the premises by the landlords is concerned, the submission made by the learned counsel was that the finding given by the learned District Judge was not correct. He challenged then the finding on the ground that the same was not based on the proper and correct appreciation of the evidence filed by the parties. He emphasised that the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dealing with the bonafide requirement of the premises by landlord was correct and was not required to be interfered with. The submission made has no merit. The learned District Judge examined the evidence of the parties and found that the affidavits filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 10 established that Col. Vijay Prakash and Dr. Satya Prakash intended to shift to Dehradun and that a case for grant of release in their favour was made out. It is not necessary for getting release under Section 21 that the all landlords need the premises. An application can be allowed even if one landlord out of many established his bonafide requirement. This finding that the need was genuine and bonafide is one of fact. 6. Coming to the question of comparative need, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that merely because Mr. T.H. Zaidi had been transferred from Dehradun to Captianganj, Deoria could not be ground for holding that the need of the petitioner cannot be looked into. In this connection, the learned counsel contended that Section 12(3-A) relied upon by the learned District Judge did not apply. According to his submission Section 12(3-A) was applicable only to a case of allotment where the prayer for the same is made on the ground of deemed vacancy. The submission also has no substance. It would be seen that the proviso added to Section 21 required a Prescribed Authority to consider the question of likely hardship. In considering the question of likely hardship a Prescribed Authority would be fully justified in taking the fact of the transfer of a tenant from the place where the premises is situated to another. It would be seen that the proviso added to Section 21 required a Prescribed Authority to consider the question of likely hardship. In considering the question of likely hardship a Prescribed Authority would be fully justified in taking the fact of the transfer of a tenant from the place where the premises is situated to another. This would show that if a tenant had been transferred from a place where the building in his tenancy is situated to another place, his possession is no possession in the eye of law, because of the fiction contained in Section 12(3-A) of the Act. If that he so, such a tenant was not likely to suffer any hardship. Accordingly, in my view, the learned District Judge rightly held that as the petitioner had been transferred from Dehradhun to Deoria, the question of his hardship did not arise. So far as the respondents are concerned I have already stated above that their need was genuine and as their need was genuine it has to be presumed on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case that they would suffer greater hardship, in case their application under Section 21 was rejected. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The petitioner is granted four months time to vacate the premises. The petitioner will hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondents within this period of four months.