STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR PATNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was heard on 28th September 2004 when the writ petition was dismissed after hearing learned Counsel for the parties for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons.

(2.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the tenant-petitioners challenging an order passed by the prescribed authority on an application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) for the release of accommodation in question. So far as application under Section 21 (1) (a) is concerned it relates to personal bonafide requirement and so far as application under Section 21 (1) (b) is concerned it is on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction. The petitioner filed an objection denying the allegations made by the landlord in application under Section 21 and raised an objection that in view of Section 21 (8) of the Act since the tenant is protected from eviction on the ground on which the application under Section 21 (1) (a) is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of Section 21 (8) which is reproduced below makes it clear that the petitioner being tenant of the category who is protected from eviction under Section 21 (1) (a) by virtue of aforesaid provision of Section 21 (8), therefore, the application so far it seeks release of the accommodation in question for bona fide personal requirement deserves to be dismissed and has been rightly dismissed by the prescribed authority:

(3.) It is next submitted that since no application can be entertained when the tenant is protected from eviction under Section 21 (8) the application so far it raises ground enumerated under Section 21 (1) (b) can also not be allowed because composite application raising grounds relating to Section 21 (1) (a) and Section 21 (1) (b) is not maintainable.