Sudhir Agarwal, J.:— Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the peti tioner and Sri Chaudhary Subhash, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/1 to 2/4. Other respondents No. 3 to 7 are son and daughters of late Sadhu Ram i. e. father of petitioner and are proforma respondents. 2. The dispute relates to shop No. 8/14, Mohalla Gopalganj, Orai, District Jalaun situated on the ground floor. The landlord filed Rent Case No. 2 of 1991 for release of property in dispute wherein he intend to settle his son Sunil Kumar Gupta, who is an engineer in Electronics and intend to start business of electronic goods. 3. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the rent case recording findings against the landlord in respect to the bona fide personal need and comparative hardship but the Appellate Court in Rent Appeal No. 6 of 1994 has set aside the judgment of Prescribed Authority and allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 16. 12. 1996 im pugned in this writ petition. Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the entire judgment, Appellate Court has discussed only the question of personal need of landlord being bona fide and genuine but except referring some authorities, he has not gone into the question of comparative hardship of the parties and therefore, the impugned appellate judgment does not contain any findings on the question of com parative hardship between the petitioner-tenant and respondent No. 2 landlord. 4. Sri Chaudhary Subhash, learned counsel appearing for respondents after go ing through the impugned judgment could not dispute this fact that so far as the appellate judgment is concerned, there is no discussion or finding on the question of comparative hardship between the parties. 5. It cannot be doubted that an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") cannot be allowed unless it is considered in the light of the factors provided in Rule 16 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1972"). These aspects have been considered by the Prescribed Authority and a finding has been recorded against landlord.
These aspects have been considered by the Prescribed Authority and a finding has been recorded against landlord. The appellate judgment however has miserably failed to consider the ques tion of hardship between the two parties, and thus has erred in law in setting aside the Prescribed Authority's order. 6. In these facts and circumstances, the appellate judgment dated 16.12.1996, impugned in this writ petition, in so far as it allows the appeal and set aside Pre scribed Authority's judgment and order dated 25.3.1994 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Appellate Court to consider question of hardship between the parties in the light of Rule 16(1) of Rules, 1972 and thereafter to take a decision in the matter, whether the appeal deserve to be allowed or not. 7. The appellate court shall pass the order, as directed above, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the manner as directed above. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition accordingly allowed. _____________