Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.:- The decision of the High Court in this case turns on the question as to whether the comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant was liable be taken into account in considering whether or not an order of eviction should be passed against the tenant. The High Court took the view on the analogy of the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Chandra Kumar v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1976 All WC 50 (FB) which struck down Rule 16 (2) of the Rules framed under U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 that Rule 16 (1) which requires the comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant to be taken into account in deciding the question of eviction was ultra vires the Act and on this view, held that the hardship which would be caused to the tenant by passing an order of eviction was not required to be considered by the District Judge. This view taken by the High Court is assailed in the present appeal preferred by the appellant/tenant with special leave obtained from this Court. It is not necessary for us to go into the question whether the view taken by the High Court as regards the validity of Rule 16 (1) is correct or not, since