- (1.)Leave is granted.
(2.)The appeal filed by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court at Allahabad dated 18/02/2000 in civil miscellaneous writ petition no. 32705 of 1999 in which the court ordered partial eviction of the tenant, respondent no. 1 herein, from the premises in question. The premises in question was being used for a shop by the tenant. The landlord filed the application for release/eviction of the tenant in 1977 on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under section 21 (1) (a) of the uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') alleging, inter alia, that he required the premises for setting up a business for himself. In the first round of the litigation, the landlord lost before the prescribed authority as well as before the appellant authority. The High Court on consideration of the matter set aside the judgment/order passed by the forums below and remanded the case to the prescribed authority for fresh consideration. In the second round the prescribed authority accepted the case of bonafide personal requirement pleaded by the landlord and ordered eviction of the tenant on that ground. The appellate authority upheld the order. The High Court in the writ petition filed by the tenant, passed the order of partial eviction. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
(3.)The main thrust of the arguments of Shri r. B. Mehrotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the question of partial eviction from premises is not available to be considered in case of a shop room. The further contention of Shri mehrotra is that such a question can be raised only in the case of residential premises and not in the case of nonresidential premises. He places reliance on rule 16 (1) (d) and rule 16 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Rules (for short 'the rules). The second contention of Shri mehrotra is that assuming such a power is available to be exercised by the authority in case of nonresidential premises also, then such a question which requires enquiry into facts could not have been considered by the High Court for the first time in exercise of writ jurisdiction.