28 of 1976 and as a result of the amendment, a proviso has been introduced in Section 21 with retrospective effect requiring the Prescribed Authority to take into account the companyparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant and the provisions of Rule 16 have also been validated with retrospective effect.
3 that his requirement of the shop was bona fide but on the question of companyparative hardship, it decided against respondent No.
The appellant thereupon preferred a Writ Petition in the High Court but presumably in view of the Full Bench decision in Chandra Kumar Shahs case supra the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition in limine.
Having regard to this retrospective amendment, the order of the High Court as also the judgment given by the District Court declining to take into account the companyparative hardship of the appellant and respondent No.
3 thereupon preferred an appeal before the District Court.
3 was number bona fide as also on the ground that the hardship which would be caused to him by passing an order of eviction would be much greater than what would be caused to Respondent No.
3 on the ground that he needed it bona fide for the purpose of enabling his son to carry on business as a carpenter.
Since the following of the present appeal, the Act has been amended by U.P. Act No.
3 was bona fide the District Court allowed the appeal and directed release of the shop in favour of respondent No.
3 and taking the view that the requirement of shop by respondent No.
Respondent No.
Whilst the appeal was pending before the District Court, a decision was given by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Kumar Shah v. District Judge holding that Rule 16 Clause 2 , of the Rules framed under the Act which requires companyparative hardship to be taken into account, was ultra vires the provisions of the Act.
The Prescribed Authority upheld the claim of respondent No.
Hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court.
3 both on the ground that the requirement of respondent No.
3 and rejected the application.
The District Court being bound by this decision, declined to take into account the companyparative hardship of the appellant and respondent No.
3 by refusing to pass it.
The appellant who is the tenant resisted the claim of respondent No.
N. Bhagwati, J. This appeal arises out of an application made by the third respondent for release of a shop under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act 1972.
The release of the shop was claimed by respondent No.
