- (1.) THE petitioner is the tenant of an accommodation of which respondent No. 3 is the landlord. An application was made by respondent No. 3 for release of the aforesaid accommodation in his favour under S. 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on the ground that he bona fide needed it for his own use. The application was contested by the petitioner but was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority an appeal was filed by the petitioner. It came up for hearing before the 1st Additional District Judge Mathura and was dismissed on March 31, 1975. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Additional District Judge is liable to be quashed inasmuch as he has not considered the hardship which is likely to be caused to the petitioner in the event of the application made by respondent No. 3 under Section 21 of the Act being allowed. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that there is substance in this submission. A perusal of the order of the Additional District Judge leaves no manner of doubt that he has not considered the question as to what hardship, if any, would be caused to the petitioner in the event of the application under Section 21 being allowed. He has also not considered the question as to whether the hardship which may be caused to respondent No. 3 in the event of the application being dismissed would be greater than that which would be caused to the petitioner in the event of the application being allowed. Section 21 of the Act has since been amended by U. P. Act 28 of 1976. Section 14 of the Amending Act inter alia provides that in sub-section (i) of Section 21 of the principal Act after the third proviso thereto the following proviso shall be inserted and shall be deemed always to have been inserted :- "Provided also that the prescribed authority shall, except in cases provided for 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 factors as may be prescribed." In view of the newly added proviso, which is retrospective in its operation the likely hardship to the petitioner from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application had to be considered by Additional District Judge and since he has not done so his order cannot be sustained.
(3.) IT has, however, been urged by counsel for respondent No. 3 that in view of the finding of the Additional District Judge that Explanation (iv) to Section 21 was applicable to the facts of the instant case, the newly added proviso would not be applicable because of the words "except in case provided for in the Explanation" used in the newly added proviso. I find myself unable to agree with this submission. The proviso referred to above was, as already noticed, inserted by Section 14 of U. P. Act 28 of 1976. By the same Section 14, Explanations (ii) and (iv) were omitted so that now Section 21 has only two Explanations, viz. - Explanations (i) and (iii). It was urged that Explanations (ii) and (iv) have not been omitted with retrospective effect. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that these two Explanations have not been omitted with retrospective effect, in my opinion, it would have no material bearing on the question as to what was meant by the word "Explanation" as used in the newly added proviso.;