- (1.) Heard Sri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. P. Yadav for opposite party Nos. 3 to 7.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the opposite party No.1 in Rent Appeal No.2 of 2004 (Vijay Kumar Versus Smt. Prakashwati and others) and the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by opposite party No.2 in Misc. Case No.135/2002 (Smt. Prakashwati Versus Vijay Kumar).
(3.) The petitioner has challenged the orders of both the Courts and there is concurrent finding about the facts. Petitioner has tried to reliy upon the provision of Section-21 (1) (ii) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 which is quoted as under:- "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- (i).............. (ii) "in the case of any residential building, for occupation for business purposes;......." He says that the Landlord could not have applied for? release of the building under this provisions because he has shown his requirement for business purpose. This is barred by the provision, as such, the application could not have been entertained and allowed.;