BIMLA DEVI KAILASH NANDAN PRASAD Vs. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We would first take up Civil Appeal No. 379 of 1980 which is directed against an Order dated March 28, 1979 passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The appellant owns a house bearing No. 113. Amroha Gate, Fruit Market, Moradabad in a portion of which he had inducted respondent No. 3 (Vishwa Nath Kapoor) as a tenant while retaining some portion for himself, when he (appellant) was serving as a Judicial Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1968. the appellant retired as a District Judge as a result of which he had to vacate his official residence, which necessitated the present eviction proceedings against respondent No. 3. The application for eviction was filed on 2-1-1973 under Section 21(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Act') in which the appellant prayed that the portion occupied by respondent No. 3 may be released on the ground of personal requirement as after retirement he wanted to occupy the entire house. The appellant further claimed that due to shortage of accommodation he had to stay with his son elsewhere. The eviction proceedings were contested by the respondent on the following grounds:-

(3.) In the same token, it was submitted as a point of law that the essential ingredient of Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1)(b) was that the building must have been in occupation of the landlord for residential purposes which alone would be a conclusive proof of personal necessity. It was also contended as a question of fact that as the appellant-landlord was not in actual occupation of the premises, Explanation (iv) would not be attracted in the instant case. To buttress this argument it was submitted that the landlord never occupied or possessed the premises but had locked up the same and was residing elsewhere. This plea of the respondent-tenant did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority or the High Court.