The provisions of the fourth proviso to Section 21(1)(a) read with Rule 16(2)(a) of the Rules are mandatory and that the Prescribed Authority must 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.

( 1 ) THE ambit, co nstruction and effect of fourth proviso of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, Act 13 of 1972 (The Act for short) read with R. 16 (2) (a) of the Rules framed under the Act, in granting or refusing the application for release under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act, is one of the questions that falls for determination in the present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution by the tenant against whom the prescribed authority has allowed the application for release and the Appellate Court has affirmed that order. The prayer is that these impugned orders be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

( 2 ) PORTRAYAL of the essential facts are these. The respondent No. 1 is the landlord of a shop 38 x 11 boundaries indicated in para 1 of the application of the respondent No. 1 situate in Mohalla Railway Ganj, Hardoi and the petitioner is tenant and runs a cycle repairing shop. As the landlord was employed in Military Engineering Service, he wants to set up his own business of refrigerator after retirement on 5-11-1985. He moved application under S. 21 (1) (a) of the Act (Annexure- 1) for release as his needs were more genuine.

( 3 ) THE present petitioner, the tenant contested the application of the landlord and filed a written-statement (Annexure-2) denying and refuting the averments made in the application for release and stating that petitioner and his sons are using the shops for cycle repairing business for the last 54 years, and the cycle repairing is the only source of livelihood of the petitioners long family of 22 members. The shop in dispute was let-out to the tenant, the petitioner in 1931, by the father of the landlord on a rent of rupee, one and paise fifty and since then he is in occupation and cycle repairing, overhauling and stove repairs are carried on, close to the shop in question there was a shop of Ram Bhawan tailor and Ram Dayal barber which were got vacated by the landlord, were demolished and let-out to Govind Ram Punjabi after reconstruction on a fabulous rent. A year ago in Mohalla Betan Ganj, one of the best localities to the road side of his own house, lands d the respondent No. 1 got new shops built and let out to Raj Electric Works and Vimal Electric Works and he has also let out a number of other shops in Mohalla Ashraf Tola, all these shops could have been used by the landlord for his proposed refrigerator business. The landlord wants to enhance the rent beyond the capacity of the tenant, but the later has no such financial capacity. Considering the hardship of the tenant the application for release could not be allowed.

( 4 ) THE prescribed authority by its order dated 6-5-1987 (Annexure-2) held the needs of the landlord, respondent No. 1 to be genuine and allowed the application under S. 21 of the Act.

( 5 ) THE petitioners appeal under S. 22 of the act was dismissed by the Ist Addl. District Judge, Hardoi by the order dated 4-11-1989 (Annexure-23 ). Against these impugned orders dated 6-5-1987 and 4-11-1989 the present writ petition has been filed by the tenant with the prayer that these impugned orders be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the tenant, the petitioner contended that the authorities below the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not apply their mind to the provisions of Fourth proviso of S. 21 (1) (a) read with R. 16 (2) (a) of the Rules framed under the Act, in respect of non-residential building where since the time of the tenants father for the last more than 54 years the petitioner was a tenant since 1931. In view of these provisions as the petitioner was a tenant since 1931 a long period the application under S. 21 for release was filed on 25-9-1985 (Annexure-1) hence there was no justification to allow the application. In any case the Act and the Rules contain social beneficial legislation for the interest of tenant, hence the provisions ought to be interpreted in that li