Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Sahai and Shri H.S.N. Tripathi for the contesting respondents.
(2.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking quashing of the order of the appellate authority passed in an appeal filed under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, confirming the order of the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the said Act, whereby the application of the three landlords for release of the said accommodation on the basis of their bona fide requirement was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri P.N. Saxena argued that from the perusal of the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) which is reproduced below, it is apparent that the satisfaction which is to be recorded by the prescribed authority before releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord, must also contain as to whether the need of the landlord will be satisfied by releasing only part of the accommodation or full accommodation in occupation of the tenant is required, to be released. This question was not raised either before the prescribed authority or appellate authority, as suggested by Shri Vishnu Sahai representing the respondents. Section 21(1)(a) is reproduced below : "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.--(1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely : (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust."
(3.) Shri Sahai relied upon a decision in 1980 ARC 311 wherein this precise question is answered by a Division Bench of the Apex Court holding that the High Court should not have rejected the stand of the tenant only on the ground that the plea was not taken before the authorities below. In reply to the aforesaid contention and decision, Shri Vishnu Sahai for the respondents has argued that the principles laid down by the aforesaid decision will not apply to the facts of the present case for the reasons ; (i) that there are three applicants in the release application and the accommodation in dispute contain three rooms, so after release of the entire accommodation, one room will fell in the share of one applicant for the release, i.e., landlord's.;