Girish Prasad Mathur, J. - (1.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. Smt. Kalawati, respondent No. 2, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the premises in occupation of the petitioner Kedar Nath. This application was contested by the tenant on various grounds. The Prescribed Authority held that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and further that the tenant will suffer greater hardship in case the release application is allowed. On these findings the release application moved by the landlord was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 1 -10 -1988. Aggrieved the landlord -respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and on this finding allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 3 -5 -1991.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned District Judge has not at all considered the question of comparative hardship and has allowed the appeal and allowed the release application only after holding that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine. It has further been submitted that the Prescribed Authority had recorded a finding in favour of the tenant that he will suffer greater hardship in case the release application was allowed bat this finding was not reversed by the learned District Judge. I have heard Shri S.M. Dayal and have examined the record. The impugned judgment of the learned District Judge shows that he has not at all adverted to the question of comparative hardship and has allowed the appeal only by reversing the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the point of bona fide need. Since the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the question of comparative hardship has not been reversed the impugned judgment suffers from manifest error of law. As such the matter requires reconsideration by the learned District Judge. Shri Dayal has submitted that the learned District Judge may be required to consider the question of comparative hardship alone as he has already recorded a finding to the effect that the need of the landlord is bona fide. In my opinion it will be proper that the entire matter including the question of bona fide need of the landlord is reconsidered by the learned District Judge after remand. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 3 -5 -1990 is quashed. The learned District Judge is directed to either rehear the appeal himself or assign the same to some other Additional District Judge other than Smt. Shushma Kumari Solanki who had heard the appeal at the earlier stage. The parties will bear their own costs. The appeal may be heard and disposed of expeditiously preferably within the three months of the presentation of a certified copy of the order before the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.;