NAND LAL Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the tenant's writ petition against the orders dated 6.3.1999 and 16.1.1996 in proceeding under Section 21 (1A) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act for short). FACTS

(2.) Sri Keshav Prasad Srivastava (respondent No. 3) (the landlord in short) is the owner and landlord of the building, i.e., House No. A-6/14-15 situate in Mohalla Mukeemganj, district Varanasi. There are five tenants in the house in dispute. Nandlal. Ramesh Kumar. Ram Chandra and Swami Nath are the tenant of one shop each. One Bhagwan Das is the tenant in the first and second floor of this building. This Js the residential portion. The tenancies in respect of five persons are separate ; though it is admitted that they are in one building. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act against all five tenants for the release of respective portions on the ground of personal need. Subsequently the application was amended and the release was sought under Section 21 (1A) of the Act. The landlord alleged that he was a Senior Public Prosecution Officer at district Gorakhpur and is in occupation of a public building, He said that he has to retire very soon, so entire building be released in his favour. He In fact retired during pendency of the case and at present Is residing in tenanted premises. The tenants filed separate objections. The Prescribed Authority after considering the entire evidence on record allowed the application of the landlord. Aggrieved, all the five tenants filed appeals. These were dismissed by a common order. Sri Nand Lal, one of tenants has filed this writ petition. He is in occupation of a shop in the building in question. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parlies. Following points arise for determination. (i) The landlord filed an application on 15.4.1987. He had to retire on 31.7.1988. Whether such an application was maintainable in view of proviso to Section 21 (1A) of the Act. (ii) Was landlord residing in a public building? Is he in a possession of an alternative accommodation? Is his need bona fide? (iii) The landlord filed one application against five tenants though they were in the same building. Is landlord entitled to benefit Section 21 (1A) of the Act in respect of ail five tenants or is he entitled to in respect of only one tenant? Was this objection raised below? Can such objection be taken in the writ petition? 1st POINT--BAR OF PROVISO TO SECTION 21 (1A)