A.N.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition by a tenant is directed against orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 21 (l-A) of the U. P. Act No, XIII of 1972 releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of the husband of respondent No. 6, the original landlord. These are the relevant facts:-
(2.) THE accommodation in dispute consists of a portion of house No. C 4/306 Sarai Gobardhan, Varanasi. It was originally owned by one Sri Jagat Ram. He gifted the said house in favour of his son Niranjan Singh, the husband of Smt. Kailashwati Devi, the respondent No. 3. Niranjan Singh was thus the owner and landlord of the aforesaid house which is the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner was a tenant of Jagat Ram and, subsequently, after the gift mentioned above, of Niranjan Singh. Niranjan Singh filed an application for eviction of the tenant from the aforesaid accommodation on 29-11-1975 on the ground that he needed the accommodation in dispute for his residence. While that application was pending Sub-section (l-A) was added to U P Act No. XIII of 1972 by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976. Under Section (l-A) it was provided, that the landlord who was in occupation of a public premises for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of cessation of his employment, could apply for an order of eviction of the tenant occupying a building belonging to the landlord and upon such an application, the Prescribed Authority under the Act was enjoined to order the eviction of the tenant. Relying on sub-section (I-A) Niranjan Singh applied for the amendment of his application under Section 21 (I). The said amendment was allowed. The tenant filed objections against the application of Niranjan Singh. The prescrib­ed Authority over-ruled the objections of the tenant and ordered his eviction from the accommodation in dispute under Section 21 (I-A). The tenant filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal Niranjan Singh died on 27-8-1978. On 15-11-1978 his widow made an application before the Appellate Court to the effect that the tenant not having taken steps to bring her on the record within the prescribed period of limitation, the appeal be declared as having abated. This widow made another application on 6-1-1979 to the same effect. It was thereafter that the tenant filed an application for substitution. This substitution application was contested but was eventually allowed. The appellate Court then considered the case on merits, and, agreeing with the Prescribed Authority, dismissed the tenant's appeal. Hence this petition. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the lower appellate Court fell into a patent error of law in dismissing the tenant's appeal. His argument is that the privilege which is conferred on the landlord under Section 21. (1-A) is personal and individual in character and by its very nature, it cannot be availed of by other members of the family of the original landlord. The sub­mission is that, therefore, upon the death of Niranjan Singh even if his widow is held to have the right to continue the proceedings or to defend the tenant's appeal, she could only rely on her own personal need unaided by the provi­sions of Section 21 (1-A). The learned District Judge, urged counsel for the petitioner, was, therefore, in error in holding that the widow of Niranjan Singh was also entitled to rely on the provision. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no substance in any above mentioned submissions of the petitioner's counsel. In order to appreciate the submission of counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to have the relevant provisions extracted here:- "21. (I-A), Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2, the prescrib­ed authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from any building under tenancy, if it is satisfied that the landlord or such building was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of the cessation of his employment: Provided that an application under this sub-section may also be given by a landlord in occupation of such public building at any time within a period of one year before the expected date of cessation of his employment, but the order of eviction on such application shall take effect only on the date of his actual cessation."
(3.) ANOTHER provision which was subject of considerable debate at the Bar is sub-section (7) of Section 21, which runs as under:- "21 (7) Where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the landlord dies, his legal representatives shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the deceased." As it happens sub-section (7) of Section 21 (i) was also added by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976.;