A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) This is a tenants petition which is directed against the concurrent orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 land 2 allowing an application for release of a shop of which the petitioners are the tenants and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the landlords under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
(2.) The facts relevant for the determination of the issues involved in the petition are these: The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 purchase-ed the shop in dispute from its previous owner under a registered sale-deed dated 9-5-1975. The petitioners have been in occupation of the shop in dispute as tenants since before the purchase of the property by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Immediately, after the purchase of the property the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application which was headed as one under clause (b) of Section 21 (1) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In the body of the application it was asserted that the building in question was in a dilapidated condition and was required for being demolished and reconstructed. It was also asserted that the landlords themselves intended to occupy the shop after it had been reconstructed for their own personal use. The application was contested by the petitioners who pleaded that the application was barred by the first proviso to Section 21 (1), inasmuch as, the landlords had filed the application under Section 21 within three years of the date of purchase of the property which was prohibited under the first proviso to Section 21 (1). It was also asserted in the objection that the building was not bona fide required by the landlords and that in any case, the building was not required to be reconstructed having regard to its condition. The Prescribed Authority held that the the building was in dilapidated condition and was required for being demolished or reconstructed. The Prescribed Authority treated the application as one under clause (b) of Section 21 (1) of the aforesaid Act and allowed it on the aforesaid finding. Having found that the landlords were entitled to the release of the building under clause (b of Section 21 (1) the Prescribed Authority did not consider it necessary to go into ,the issue of relative hardship likely to be caused; to the tenants. The Prescribed Authority on the aforesaid findings allowed the application. The petitioners appealed. The appellate court affirmed the findings of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the application was in substance one under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the aforesaid Act and having admittedly been filed within three years of the purchase of the accommodation in dispute by the present landlords from the previous owners, it was barred by the first proviso to Section 21. The application was headed under clause (b) of Section 21 (1) in order to circumvent this proviso. The Courts below have therefore, erred in directing the release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the respondents. Nos. 3 and 4 treating the application as one covered by clause (b) to Section 21 (1).
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no merits in this petition.;