A. N. Gupta, J. This matter relates to H. No. 332 consisting of three rooms situated in Mohalla Qasab Bara, Faizabad City in which the petitioner has been resid ing as tenant since the year 1960. One Mohd. Rafi Ullah was landlord of the house and during pendency of this litiga tion he died and Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 are his legal representatives. The landlord resides in the adjoining house No. 331 which consists of a rooms out of which 5 are small rooms. The family of landlord consists of 5 sons, 3 daughters and a wife. All these 5 sons have several children. 2. The petitioner is a retired medical officer originally belonging to Sitapur where he owns a big house which is said to be in the tenancy of Sri Ram Lal Rahi presently in the Council of Ministers in the Central Government. He has no accom modation in Faizabad and is running his clinic at Faizabad city in a different premises. 3. The landlord respondent moved an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the premises in question, namely. House No. 332 was required to accommodate the existing and expanding family of the landlord. This ap plication was resisted by the petitioner contending that he had no accommoda tion at Faizabad. His efforts to get his house vacated at Sitapur failed. He also could not succeed in getting any Nazul Land allotted in his favour at Faizabad. In fact, what he contended is that his com parative hardship is greater than the hardship of the landlord. The Prescribed Authority upheld the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the application of the landlord respondent. Aggrieved by this decision the landlord approached the District Judge by filing the appeal which has been allowed by the District Judge, Faizabad by means of impugned judgment dated 7- 9-81 against which the tenant has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. There was another litigation be tween the landlord and tenant earlier and in the year 1968 they entered into a com promise in which the petitioner tenant agreed to vacate the premises in question on finding out an alternative accommoda tion. 4. There was another litigation be tween the landlord and tenant earlier and in the year 1968 they entered into a com promise in which the petitioner tenant agreed to vacate the premises in question on finding out an alternative accommoda tion. Learned District Judge upheld the plea of the landlord respondent that their need for the premises in question was bona fide and genuine. On comparative hardship he gave the following finding: "to my mind, in the circumstances of the case, the hardship that may be experienced by the landlords in case their application is dis missed would in no case be less than the one which would be experienced by the tenant if he was asked to vacate the accommodation. In other words, taking a very liberal view in favour of the tenant, the utmost that can be said is that the hardship of the landlords in the event of dismissal of their petition may be evenly balanced against the hardship of the tenant in case a contrary course was adopted and even in such a case the landlord had to succeed, as has been held in the decision in Pooran Chand Shar-ma v. Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, 1979 ARC 62. " 5. None appeared on behalf of the landlords opposite parties No. 4 to 12 in-spite of the fact that they had filed a counter- affidavit and, therefore, this writ petition is being finally disposed of after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner only. 6. From the perusal of the order of the District Judge which has been quoted above, it is clear that the District Judge came to the conclusion that the hardship of the tenant as wall as landlords was even ly balanced and the petitioner tenant would also suffer hardship if the applica tion of the landlords was allowed and landlord would also suffer equal hardship in case ejectment application was dis missed. I have gone through the record and find that there is no justification for revers ing these findings of the District Judge. The landlords are nine in number and even if three married daughters are excluded therefrom it leaves six landlords, out of whom five are grown up sons having several children. Theirs is an expanding family and obviously the present accom modation is insufficient for all of them. The landlords are nine in number and even if three married daughters are excluded therefrom it leaves six landlords, out of whom five are grown up sons having several children. Theirs is an expanding family and obviously the present accom modation is insufficient for all of them. Similarly, tenant petitioner has a house at Sitapur but unfortunately he has not been able to get that accommodation vacated from a Minister in the Central Council of Ministers, who is his tenant. He has to reside at Faizabad wherein spite of his best efforts he has not been able to obtain an alternative accommodation. In fact the tenant and the landlord in the earlier litigation entered into a compromise wherein tenant had agreed to vacate the premises in question provided he was able to find out alternative accommodation which he failed to find. In view of this, there can be no dispute to the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge that the hardship of the tenant as well as the landlords is evenly and equally balanced. 7. Now the question for considera tion is as to whether in these circumstances the application of landlords under Section 21 (l) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking ejectment of the petitioner should be al lowed or rejected. The relevant parts of Section 21 run as follows: 21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (1) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely- (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust: (b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction ^ Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . Provided also that the Prescribed Authority shall, except in cases provided fair in the explanation, take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such fac tors as may be prescribed. Explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (l-A)to (8 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that 4th proviso lays down that the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application has to be considered which means that the likely hardship of the tenant has to be placed above the likely hardship of the landlords. The 4th proviso provides that the Prescribed Authority shall have regard to such factors as maybe prescribed. Rule 16 has been framed for the purpose which runs as follows: 16. The 4th proviso provides that the Prescribed Authority shall have regard to such factors as maybe prescribed. Rule 16 has been framed for the purpose which runs as follows: 16. Application for releases on the ground of personal requirement Sections 21 (1) (a) and 34 (8) (1 ).-In considering the requirements of personal occupation for purposes of residence by the landlord or any member of his family, the Prescribed Authority shall, also have regard to such factors as the following: (a) where the landlord already has ade quate and reasonable suitable accommodation having regard to the number of members of his family and their respective ages and his means and social status, his claim for additional re quirements shall be construed strictly; (b) where a residential building was let out at a time when the sons of the landlord were minors and subsequently one or more of them has married, the additional requirement of ac commodation for the landlords sons shall be given due consideration; (c) where the tenant has, apart from the building under tenancy other adequate accom modation, whether owned by him or held as tenant of any public premises, having regard to the number of members of his family and their respective ages and his social status, the landlords claim for additional requirements shall be construed liberally; (d) where the tenants need would be ade quately met by leaving with him a part of the building under tenancy and the landlords needs would be served by releasing the other part, the Prescribed Authority shall release only the latter part of the building ; (e) where there are a number of tenants separately occupying a block of tenements and the landlord desires their eviction on ground of his personal need the Prescribed Authority shall, consider whether suitable alternative ac commodation is likely to be available to such tenants; (f) where the landlord offers to the tenant alternative accommodation reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family the landlords claim for release of the building under tenancy shall be construed liberally; (g) where the landlord was engaged in any employment in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building is situates and was in occupation of other ac commodation by reason of such employment or where the landlord is the wife or minor son or unmarried daughter of a person who was engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment away from the city, municipality, notified area or town area within which the building is situate and was living with such per son, and by reason of the cessation of such engagement, the landlord needs the building for occupation by himself for residential purposes, such need shall ordinarily be deemed sufficient. 9. It was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Rule 16 (l) (f) lays down that where the landlord offers to the tenant alternative accommodation reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family, the landlords claim for release of the building under tenancy shall be construed liberally. He argued that liberal construction of the provision in favour of the landlords can be made only in those cases where the landlord offers an alternative accommodation to the tenant suitable to his needs and in no other case. I do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to interpretation of Rule 16 (l) (f)-The rule cannot travel beyond the scope of Section itself. The 4th proviso to Section 21 clearly makes out that comparative hardship of the landlord as well as of the tenant have to be considered. In fact 16 (l) (f) takes care of a particular contin gency wherein the landlord offers alterna tive accommodation to a tenant. This Rule 16 (l) (f) is neither in derogation nor in addition to the. 4th proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. What therefore flows from the provisions of Sec tion 21 as well as Rule 16 is that compara tive hardships of the landlord and the tenant have to be considered. If landlord offers to the tenant an alternative accom modation, application of landlord for ejectment of the tenant has to be allowed. Similarly, the application of the landlord has to be allowed for tenants ejectment in case his hardship is greater than hardship of the tenant. 10. However, so far as this case is concerned, it is not a case of greater hardship of the tenant vis-a-vis landlord. This is a case where there is an equal hardship on both the sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to some observations made in the case of Shyam Sunder Mishra v. VI Addl. 10. However, so far as this case is concerned, it is not a case of greater hardship of the tenant vis-a-vis landlord. This is a case where there is an equal hardship on both the sides. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to some observations made in the case of Shyam Sunder Mishra v. VI Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, 1995 ACJ, 1161 in para 14, of which it has been observed that in the whole country, on account of the paucity of residential and non-residential accom modation, the necessity arose that tenant should not be evicted from the tenanted premises without adequate ground, mere ly on the sweet will of the landlord and taking into consideration the above cir cumstances coupled with the social condi tions, the Rent Control and Eviction Acts were passed in the whole country with respect to urban areas and in that very process, in Uttar Pradesh, Act No. 3 of 1947 and Act No. 13 of 1972 were enacted by virtue of which it was provided that the landlord can evict tenant only under the conditions prescribed by the Act. The Act has been passed with the objective of ameliorating the condition of tenant and having regard to the perhaps of the enact ment, the provisions of the Act should be interpreted benevolently in favour of tenant. The observations by this Court were made on the basis of observation by Supreme Court made in the case of Mangat Rai & Anr. v. Kidar Nath & Ors. , AIR 1980 SC 1709 in para 19, of which it was observed that Rent Control Acts in the country are places of social legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the landlords and the require ments of the tenants. Thus, what Rent Control Acts provide for is to strike a just balance between tenant and the landlord. In fact that is the spirit of Section 21 (l) (a) and Rule 16 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 also. Learned District Judge in his judgment has referred to the observations made in the case of Sri Puran Chandra Sharma v. Additional Distt. Judge, Kanpur & Ors. ,1919 ARC, 257, which was also a case under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. Learned District Judge in his judgment has referred to the observations made in the case of Sri Puran Chandra Sharma v. Additional Distt. Judge, Kanpur & Ors. ,1919 ARC, 257, which was also a case under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. In that case finding of fact was that the needs of the landlord and the tenant were genuine and bona fide and the comparative hardship was equal on both sides. Ejectment of the tenant was ordered by Court below by allowing the applica tion of the landlord and it was upheld by this Court in the said decision. Apart from this (sic) one thing which is to be born in mind is that landlord, is owner of the house. 11. In these circumstances, when the need of both the landlord and tenant is genuine and bona fide and the comparative hardship are equal on both the sides one who is the owner should be held entities to reside in his house than the other. It is true that Rent Control Act are pieces of social legislation, but they have to a just balance between tenant and landlord. In my opinion where the hardship of landlord and tenant is equal, right of the landlord to live in his own house has to be upheld and the tenant has to give way. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .