ABHINANDAN LAL Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DIST JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated in Etah. The respondent No. 3 is the landlady of the said shop. She filed an application for the release of the building in the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This application was allowed by the prescribed Authority and his order has been affirmed by the Second Additional District Judge, Etah by his order dated 29th January, 1976. The landlady's need has been found to be genuine and bona fide and also comparatively greater than that of the tenant. The petitioner tenant has filed this writ petition on the ground that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the aforesaid authorities and that the order releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlady deserves to be quashed.

(2.) THE principal contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there has been no compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules made under the Act. It was contended that although the landlady had stated in her release application that the building was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be pulled down yet the requirements of law as laid down in Rule 17 had not been complied with. It was contended that even if the application for release was one under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the building was required by the landlady after demolition and new construction the provisions of Rule 17 were attracted and had to be fulfilled. In other words, the contention was that the provisions of Rule 17 were attracted to a case under Section 21 (1) (a) also where the building was required to be demolished and rebuilt. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the provisions of Section 21 (1) and Rule 17 of the Rules made under the Act. It will be worthwhile to reproduce these provisions, Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) reads as follows:-

(3.) CLAUSE (a) of Section 21 (1) applies to a case where the building is bona fide required by the landlord either in its existing form or after demolition and re-construction. It would be applicable even to a building which may not be dilapidated. If a building is a small one or an old one or an inadequate one and the landlord requires it to be built a new so as to have a larger floor area or raise a new structure on the existing land for better utilisation he may be given the necessary order of release. What is to be seen in such a case is the bone fide need of the landlord and not the condition of the building. In a case coming under clause (b) the Prescribed Authority has to be satisfied that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. In such a case under clause (b) the release order is required so that the building could be demolished and re-constructed. Clause (b) does not say anywhere that it is required for the personal use of the landlord or any members of his family. It would thus be evident that under clause (a) the emphasis is on the requirement of the landlord whereas under the clause (b) the emphasis is on the dilapidated condition of the building. In view of the clear wordings of Rule 17 and the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) it is not possible to hold that the provisions of Rule 17 also apply in a case under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act.