Hari Nath Tilhari, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 10 -9 -1991, passed by the Prescribed Authority (5th Addl. Civil Judge; Lucknow), whereby the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application of the opposite -parties for release under Section 21(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 i.e. U.P. Act No. XIIIC of 1972 (hereinafter referred as Act No. XIII of 1972), ordering the eviction of the petitioner, in pursuance of release order referred to above, from accommodation of house No. 510/138. New Hyderabad Mahanagar, Lucknow as affirmed by Xth Additional District Judge, Lucknow by order dated 20th November, 1991, passed in R.A. No. 46 of 1991 Kalpnath Pandey v. Smt. Mariyam and others, whereby the learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner -tenant. I have heard Shri N.N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogesh Misra, learned Counsel for the opposite -parties at length.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri Nirankar Nath Jaiswal made the following submissions: - - (a) That the order impugned which had been passed without affording him sufficient opportunity of adducing evidence in support of his defence to the petitioner -tenant and that the case has been decided against him without giving him proper and full hearing. Shri Jaiswal submitted that the case which was pending earlier in Court of I Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow, had been transferred to the Court of Vth Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow but no notice was issued to the petitioner from that Court about the hearing of the case nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to lead his evidence, as well as the petitioner's application C -25 whereby the petitioner had raised the question of non -maintainability of the application for release under Section 21 of the Act was disposed off and as said application has not been disposed off by the Prescribed Authority, he could not get opportunity to file his evidence in support of his defence. Shri Jaiswal further submitted that the order of release has been passed on the ground that as Shri Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar, two sons of the petitioner had acquired the accommodation in Kursi Road Yojna Vikas Nagar, Aliganj, Lucknow in which there resides a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 250/ - and such petitioner's objection to release was not maintainable and the finding that landlord's need was bona fide arrived at ex parte without providing the petitioner -tenant opportunity of hearing and leading evidence by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Court while disposing of the release application or the appeal itself. According to the contention of the learned Counsel Shri Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar, the two sons of the tenant -petitioner were major who had acquired the accommodation and, therefore, the acquisition of accommodation by them could not be taken into consideration while disposing of the application under Section 21 of the Act. That explanation was wrongly applied and the petitioner was illegally denied right of defence and objection by misapplication of Explanation to Section 21(1) of the Act.
(3.) SHRI Jaiswal contended that explanation to Section 21(1) is a provision of the nature which has civil consequence and has to be interpreted in consonance with object, letter and spirit of the provision, Act and its Scheme and considered in that context. Shri Jaiswal submitted that the intention of legislature is that the other accommodation acquired either by the tenant or the member of his family as mentioned in the Explanation to the Sub -section 1 of Section 21 of the Act should be one that may be sufficient to provide residential accommodation to accommodate the family of the tenant. It is only in those cases the objections are not to be heard and his further submission is that the learned Prescribed Authority and the learned Additional District Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter while disposing of the release application or the appeal. In this connection, Shri Jaiswal also made a reference to Rule 16(c) of the Rules framed under the Act as well.;