- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the tenants and they pray that this Court may issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the III Addl District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur passed on December 6, 1978 in an appeal Under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'
(2.) The dispute in the case relates to about 2/3rd portion of a house, 1/3rd portion of which is in the occupation of the landlords who are arrayed as opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The District Judge has applied Explanation (i) appended to Section 21 of the Act and reversing the judgment of the Prescribed Authority has held that since the Petitioners have constructed a multi-storeyed residential building at Nautanwa Bazar where the building in dispute is situated, no objection to the landlords' application for the release of the building can be entertained. He has held that the building in dispute is bonafide required by opposite parties Nos. 3 4 and 6 for their personal residence and that it is unnecessary to compare the respective needs of the Petitioners and the landlords.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the tenant Petitioners has raised two fold arguments against the validity of the said order. In the first place, he has submitted that the user of the accommodation at the inception of the tenancy or its nature is wholly irrelevant in applying the provisions of Explanation (i) to Section 21. According to him the use to which the building was actually put at the time of the making of the application should have been taken into account in deciding the question. According to him, at the time of the presentation of the application, the building was being admittedly used for business purposes and it was necessary for the District Judge to compare the respective needs of the parties uninfluenced by the provisions contained in Explanation (i) to Section 21 of the Act. He next submitted that the newly constructed house belongs to the Petitioner's sons who were not residing with them and were not dependent on him and the construction of the said building did not attract the application of Explanation (i) of Section 21 of the Act.;