Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sandeep Agarwal, holding brief of Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for respondent No.3/1 and Sri Manish Tandon, Advocate for respondents No.3/1/1 and 3/1/2 and perused the record.
(2.) The writ petition is directed against judgment dated 19th March, 1997 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar allowing respondent-tenants' Rent Appeal No.91 of 1995 and setting aside Prescribed Authority's order dated 28th April, 1995 consequent to which petitioner's application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") has been rejected.
(3.) The facts, which are not in dispute before this Court, is that respondent No.2, Ram Narain, had purchased another accommodation i.e. House No.128/H-1/205, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. The respondent No.3 Smt. Sumitra Devi (now deceased and substituted by her legal heirs) is mother of respondent no.2. That being so, whether actual tenant in the case was respondents No.2 or 3 would make no difference. Purchase of another residential accommodation by respondent No.2 would admittedly attract explanation to Section 21(1) of Act, 1972 which reads as under: "(i) where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependent on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained.";