SAMIULLAH Vs. MOHAMMAD ZAMIL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of house No. 21/98 situate in English Lines in the City of Varanasi. It consists of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor. About 25 years ago the ground floor was let out to the petitioner for residential purposes. The first and the second floors remained with the landlords and the opposite party No. 1 resided in it. The opposite party No. 2 was carrying on business in Calcutta and was residing there. On 14.10.1971 the landlords moved an application under Section 3 of the erstwhile U.P. Act III of 1947 for permission to file a suit for eviction against the petitioner. It was alleged that the opposite party No. 2 who was living in Calcutta wanted to come back to Varanasi after closing his business there. He was already possessed of business premises in Varanasi but he needed accommodation for residence. The first and the second floor of this house were not sufficient to accommodate him. Therefore, they bonafide required the ground floor for the residence of opposite party No. 2. The petitioner resisted that application on a number of grounds. In the meantime the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) came into force and the application was treated as application for release under Section 21 of this Act and was disposed of by the Prescribed Authority. He was of the view that the landlord's need was bonafide. He released the ground floor in their favour. The tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the new Act. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the case was covered by Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1) of the Act. Accordingly he held that the building was bonafide required by the landlords and it was not necessary to compare the relative hardship of the landlord and the tenant, the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) The first question which arises for consideration is whether Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1) of the new Act applies to the facts of the present case. Explanation (iv) runs as under :