Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) This is a tenants petition challenging the appellate order passed under Section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The landlord moved an application under Section 3 of the U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 in 1968. On the enforcement of Section 43 (2) (a) of the Act it was converted into an application under Section 21 of the Act and transferred to the prescribed authority for decision. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application. On appeal the District Judge has allowed the application and directed the eviction of the tenant.
(2.) The Additional District Judge held that the premises in dispute were residential and the need of the landlord was not only genuine but comparatively greater than that of the tenant. Treating, however, the building as also a commercial accommodation he directed a payment of Rs. 150/- as compensation to the tenant presumably under the second proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act.
(3.) According to the Additional District Judge the building had to be treated as a residential building and, therefore, Explanation (i) to Section 21 of the Act debarred the tenant from raising any objection against the application for his eviction on the finding that his son had constructed another building. After holding that the Explanation was available he proceeded to consider the matter and held that the landlords need was genuine and bona fide. He also held that it may be possible for the tenant to carry on the business in the new house which his son had constructed.;