CHUNNOO LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by a tenant against the order passed in proceedings under the U.P. Urban Build ing (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter re ferred to as the Act). An application was moved under Section 21 (1) of the Act for release of the accommodation. The application was rejected by the prescribed authority. The landlord went up in ap peal. The appeal was allowed and the eviction of the tenant has been ordered. According to the finding of the appellate court, the landlord lives on the first floor while the tenant lived on the ground floor. The latrine, which is on the ground floor, was in common use. He also found that at some time the water tap was also common. On these findings he came to the conclusion that the case was covered by Ex planation (iv) to Section 21 (1) of the Act. Accordingly he held that the building was bona fide required by the landlord. The appellate court then recorded the finding that the need of the tenant was com paratively greater than the need of the landlord, but still allowed the appeal because, according to him, the need of the landlord was bona fide.

(2.) THE first question that arises for consideration is whether Ex planation (iv) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act applies to the facts of the present case. Explanation (iv) runs as under: -

(3.) IN the present Act the premises to be dealt with for purposes of letting have been described as 'building'. The definition of building given in Section 3(i) is as under: -