JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 13th October, 1977. 2. Premises No. 528 Ladhawala, Muzaffarnagar belongs to respondent No. 2, Prithviraj Saxena. This building was comprised of three stories. Initially, the ground floor and the first floor had been let out to one Tahaldas, brother of the petitioner. A portion on the second floor was in possession of the petitioner and aforesaid Tahaldas. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under section 21 of U P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Tahaldas and the petitioner. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, two appeals were preferred to the District Judge, one by Tahaldas and the other by Kishan Lal, the petitioner. The appeal of Kishanlal was allowed whereas that of Tahaldas dismissed. As a result of the aforesaid order of the District Judge passed in the two appeals, preferred under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the respondent No. 2 obtained possession of the ground floor and that of the first floor from Tahaldas. While deciding the appeal the learned Additional District Judge observed :- "The portion on the ground floor can serve the business needs of the landlord's son Om Prakash while their residential needs would be fulfilled by the portion on the first floor, which comprises of three rooms one kitchen, store room, bath room, Chhajja and latrine." Admittedly, this order became final. After some time respondent No. 2 filed another application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioner for his ejectment from the premises on the second floor. The application was filed on the ground that the premises was required bonafide by the landlord for his use and occupation. The landlord stated that he was an employee of the State Bank of India at Roorkce and since he was due to retire after two years he wanted to settle at Muzaffarnagar after retirement. The application was contested by the petitioner as well as by Tahaldas who was also a co-tenant along with Kishan Lat of that portion. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application against which the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this writ. 3. The application was contested by the petitioner as well as by Tahaldas who was also a co-tenant along with Kishan Lat of that portion. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application against which the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence this writ. 3. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in allowing the appeal and in setting aside the order of the prescribed authority. The first error committed by him was that he did not consider the need of the tenant and compare it with that of the landlord. Under the proviso to Section 21, it was incumbent on the learned Additional District Judge to have taken into account the likely hardship of the tenant as against the likely hardship to the landlord in the event of the application for release being allowed. In this case, the learned Additional District Judge confined himself only to the consideration of the likely hardship which the landlord was to suffer from the refusal of the application. He neither considered the need of the tenant nor compared it with that of the landlord. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained. 4. The other error which was committed by the learned District Judge was to apply rule (g) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 to the facts of the present case and in assuming on its basis that the need of the landlord was sufficient. The aforesaid rule applies to a case where a landlord was engaged in any employment in the same city, municipality or notified area in which the building is situated and that he was in occupation of other accommodation by reason of such employment. In the instant case, respondent No. 2 was admittedly employed at Roorkee and was not working in Mazaffarnagur. Accordingly the aforesaid rule did not apply. The learned Additional District Judge also committed an error in not properly appreciating the judgment given in civil appeals Nos. 172 and 181 of 1972 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. 5. In view of all this, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Accordingly the aforesaid rule did not apply. The learned Additional District Judge also committed an error in not properly appreciating the judgment given in civil appeals Nos. 172 and 181 of 1972 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. 5. In view of all this, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 13-10-1977 is quashed and the case is remanded to him with a direction that he will decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There will be no order as to the costs.