JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - This is a landlady's writ 'petition arising out of her application under Sec. 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which has been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority whose decision has been affirmed on appeal, by the learned, District Judge. The property in question consists of a shop on the groundfloor of her house No. 11, Murli Nagar, Lucknow, which she wanted for her husband's business. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the tenantsrespondents already had four other shops and that no hardship would be involved if they are required to vacate the shop in question. 2. No one appears on behalf of the tenant, opposite parties nos. 3 and 4, inspite of sufficient service, as such, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, exparte. 3. The learned District Judge has observed that as the petitioner's own need was not established, 4the question of comparing the hardship to the parties did not arise. In this connection it may be noted that while according to the respondent he had no shops in Nai Basti, it was found by an Advocate Commissioner that the respondent did have two shops in Nai Basti, which had been newly constructed on property which was purchased by the tenants in 1963. 4. It is true that the question of the landlord's need should be considered first and only when the same is established that the question of comparative hardship would arise. However, it appears in the present case that the landlady's need has also not been fairly considered. Much has been made of the fact that the landlady's husband, for whom the Shop was said to be required, was working at an adjacent shop. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the other shop belonged to her husband's father and not to her husband. Any premises which may have been sufficient for the petitioner's husband's father's business when the petitioner's husband was a minor, may not necessarily be sufficient after the petitioner's husband became major and brought up his own family whom he was expected to support. Indeed the need would grow further if he also, in course of time, came to have adult sons who may need to be settled in business. Indeed the need would grow further if he also, in course of time, came to have adult sons who may need to be settled in business. All this has, however, not been considered by the two authorities below and, as such, the matter requires to be decided afresh. A decision of a quasijudicial tribunal would stand vitiated if the relevant considerations have not been taken into account or if irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. Accordingly, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. 5. In the result the writ petition is allowed exparte and the order of the Prescribed Authority, annexure 7, and the appellate order, annexure 10, are hereby quashed. The case is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh in accordance with law. 6. No orders as to costs, (Petition allowed)