NIRANJAN PRASAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a tenant's writ petition arising out of a proceeding on an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the accommodation in question filed by the opposite party no. 3. Sri B. P. Nautiyal, who is a practising Advocate in the Civil Court and is the landlord of the accommodation in question. Both the Courts below on a comparison of the comparative needs of the parties have held that the need of the landlord is bona fide, and genuine and have accordingly allowed the said application for release.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have failed to take into consideration the provisions of Rule 10 (1) (d) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting Rent and Eviction) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in as much as the courts below ought to have considered as to whether in accordance with the said Rule the need of the landlord can be satisfied by releasing only a part of the premises. Admittedly, no such plea was taken by the tenant in his written statemeat. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Mahrotra v. llnd Addl. District Judge, 1980 ARC 311 for the proposition that even if no such plea was raised in written statement, the court was bound to go into that question. This submission need not be gone into because I find that it has been settled by this court in the case of Varanasi Ramanand Balika Vidyalaya v. The llnd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi 1981 ARC 364 that Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules applies only to cases where landlord's need is for residential purposes and it does not apply to the need set up for non-residential purposes. In the present case landlord's need is for non-residential purposes. In this view of the matter the courts below have not committed any error of law in not considering the provisions of Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules.

(3.) IN view of the above findings recorded by the lower appellate court and after going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below I also find that the need of the landlord advocate is bonafide and genuine and the findings recorded by the courts below in this regard do not suffer from any error of law. Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the appellate authorities below have failed to take into consideration the relevant requirements as contemplated by Section 16 (2) (a) of the said Rules.