ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the order passed by the prescribed authority which has been affirmed by the appellate authority under the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief facts of the case are that respondent -landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accommodation in question in his favour on the ground that he is employed in defence force and he is retired or likely to be retired at the time the application was filed. He decided to settle down in Agra after his retirement. The application was, therefore, filed for the release of residential accommodation of the landlord. The petitioner contested the application on the ground that he is tenant of only two rooms and the accommodation in question is a big accommodation. In these circumstances the landlord, in fact, does not require the accommodation bona fide. In fact his intention is to sell out the property after getting it released.
(3.) THE prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that the landlord bona fide need the accommodation for his residential purposes. So far as question of selling it out after getting released is concerned the prescribed authority has stated that in case the property is sold out as alleged by the petitioner he will have a right of re -entry. In these circumstances the prescribed authority arrived at a conclusion that the need of the landlord is bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship the landlord was given benefit of provisions of Explanation (iii) of Section 21 which reads as under: (iii) Where the landlord of any building is - (1) a serving or retired Indian Soldier as defined in the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (IV of 1925), and such building was let out at any time before his retirement, or (2) a widow of such a soldier and such building was let out at any time before the retirement or death of her husband, whichever, occurred earlier, and such landlord needs such building for occupation by himself or the members of his family for residential purposes, then his representation that he needs the building for residential purposes for himself or the members of his family shall be deemed sufficient for the purposes of clause (a), and where such landlord owns more than one building this provision shall apply in respect of one building only. ;