KALPNATH PANDEY Vs. XITH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 10 -9 -1991, passed by the Prescribed Authority (5th Addl. Civil Judge; Lucknow), whereby the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application of the opposite -parties for release under Section 21(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 i.e. U.P. Act No. XIIIC of 1972 (hereinafter referred as Act No. XIII of 1972), ordering the eviction of the petitioner, in pursuance of release order referred to above, from accommodation of house No. 510/138. New Hyderabad Mahanagar, Lucknow as affirmed by Xth Additional District Judge, Lucknow by order dated 20th November, 1991, passed in R.A. No. 46 of 1991 Kalpnath Pandey v. Smt. Mariyam and others, whereby the learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner -tenant. I have heard Shri N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogesh Misra, learned Counsel for the opposite -parties at length.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri Nirankar Nath Jaiswal made the following submissions: - -

(3.) SHRI Jaiswal contended that explanation to Section 21(1) is a provision of the nature which has civil consequence and has to be interpreted in consonance with object, letter and spirit of the provision, Act and its Scheme and considered in that context. Shri Jaiswal submitted that the intention of legislature is that the other accommodation acquired either by the tenant or the member of his family as mentioned in the Explanation to the Sub -section 1 of Section 21 of the Act should be one that may be sufficient to provide residential accommodation to accommodate the family of the tenant. It is only in those cases the objections are not to be heard and his further submission is that the learned Prescribed Authority and the learned Additional District Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter while disposing of the release application or the appeal. In this connection, Shri Jaiswal also made a reference to Rule 16(c) of the Rules framed under the Act as well.