JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 14-7-1977. By the impugned order two appeals have been disposed of. I am concerned herewith Rent Control Appeal No. 1363 of 1976. The appellate court has allowed this appeal and directed the eviction of the petitioners, who are the tenants of the disputed accommodation. 2. An application was filed by the landlady Smt. Katwari Devi under section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against two tenants, Shri Shyam Kishore and M/s. General Paper Trading Company through Ram Babu Bhargava for the release of house No. 13, Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad. These two tenants were occupying different portions of the aforesaid house as tenants of the said landlady. The landlady asserted that she was residing in a portion of the building in another portion of which on the ground floor the petitioners were in occupation as tenants. The landlady required the entire house for herself and she proposes to start a business of her own on the ground floor which is in occupation of the petitioners as tenants. 3. The application was contested by the petitioners. They asserted that the landlady did not bona fide require the disputed aCcommodation. Her need was neither genuine nor pressing and in any case they would suffer considerable hardship if they are evicted from the accommodation in dispute. 4. The prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the landlady on the finding that her need was not bona fide. Aggrieved, the landlady filed an appeal which has been allowed as mentioned above. The appellate court had disposed of the issue of alleged genuineness of the need set up by the landlady on the basis of Explanation IV to the fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21, which was deleted by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. The appellate court held that as the landlady was admittedly occupying for her residence a portion of the building in another part of which the tenants were carrying on business her need must be presumed to be genuine under the said proviso. The appellate court did not consider the claim of the landlady independently of that proviso. The appellate court held that as the landlady was admittedly occupying for her residence a portion of the building in another part of which the tenants were carrying on business her need must be presumed to be genuine under the said proviso. The appellate court did not consider the claim of the landlady independently of that proviso. The appellate court then went on to consider the circumstances of the tenants and observed that they had a large number of buildings in the same city at their disposal and they would not suffer any particular hardship, in evicted from the disputed accommodation. 5. Shri Raja Ram Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court committed a patent error of law in applying Explanation IV to the fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 which has been deleted by the U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, which came into force on 5th July, 1976. The deletion of the said proviso has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly and others, 1978 All. Rent Cases 296. to be retrospective in its operation. As the appeal was pending when the said amendment was made the appellate court was bound to ignore the said Explanation. 6. Learned counsel for the landlady, on the other hand, vehemently contended that in view of the fact that the appellate court has found that the petitioners have in their possession or control a large number of buildings in the same city this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that this case should go back to the learned had Additional District Judge for a fresh decision. 8. The first question which fell for determination was whether the need of the landlady was bona fide. It is only after the appellate court records a finding in accordance with law that the landlady bona fide requires the disputed accommodation that the second question, namely, comparison of relative hardship arises. The circumstances of the tenant become relevant only after the court is satisfied that the landlady bona fide needs the accommodation. In the present case, as mentioned above the appellate court did not examine the question of bona fide need independently of the said Explanation. The circumstances of the tenant become relevant only after the court is satisfied that the landlady bona fide needs the accommodation. In the present case, as mentioned above the appellate court did not examine the question of bona fide need independently of the said Explanation. The Explanation having been deleted the appellate court was under a duty of examine that issue on the evidence on the record. In not doing so, it has failed to do a duty which was case upon it under the law. The appellate court should also consider the issue of relative hardship afresh after it has recorded a finding on the question whether or not the landlady bona fide requires the disputed accommodation. 9. As the case seems to be a very old one, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the appeal should be disposed of expeditiously. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 1363 of 1976 Smt. Katwari Devi v. M/s. General Paper Trading Company and others is quashed. The said court will now dispose of the appeal afresh according to law, having regard to the observations made in this judgment. It shall try to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month from the date on which either party produces a certified copy of this order before it. The parties shall bear their own costs on this petition.