G.P. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against the judgment and order dated 24.8.1993 of Special Judge, Jhansi, by which the appeal preferred by him against the order of release passed by the prescribed authority, has been dismissed. Ram Sahai, landlord respondent No. 3 filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Nathu Ram for release of ground floor of house No. 161/1 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 5 of 1986. The application had been filed on the ground that the premises in dispute were required for his son Hari Chandra who had been married and that the tenant Nathu Ram had constructed a big house of Mohalla Bajpaipura where he had already shifted and was residing along with his family. The release application was contested by the tenant on the ground that the need of the landlord was not bona fide or genuine, that he was tenant of the ground floor on a rent of Rs. 40/ - per month and of the first floor on a rent of Rs. 30/ - per month; that he had taken the ground floor for the purpose of carrying on business of yarn and the first floor for the purpose of residence; that after construction of his own house, he had vacated the first floor which was being used for the purpose of residence and that he is still carrying on business in the ground floor.
(2.) THE prescribed authority relying upon Explanation (i) to sub -Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act held that as the tenant has built his residential building in the same city, no objection by him against the release application can be entertained. He accordingly allowed the release application by his judgment and order dated 3.5.1991. The appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed by the learned District Judge by the order dated 30.4.1992. The tenant then preferred writ petition No. 16612 of 1992 in this Court. This court held that Explanation (i) to sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Act applies to a residential building alone and therefore the first question which required to be determined was as to whether the premises in dispute was a residential building or it was non -residential building. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment Learned Special Judge, Jhansi, who heard the appeal in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, again dismissed the same by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.93 holding that the tenant was precluded from making any objection to the release application filed by the landlord in view of the Explanation (i) to sub -section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The learned District Judge has recorded the following findings in his judgment: - 1. The tenant Nathu Ram had taken disputed premises on rent in the year 1970 -71 when he was in Government service and from where he retired in 1975. Since Nathu Ram was in Government service and he could not have carried on any business, it showed that premises were taken on rent for residential purposes. 2. At the time when the premises were taken on rent, the tenant was neither carrying on any business nor he had taken the premises for the said purposes. 3. The accommodation consists of two rooms, courtyard and bath room and looking to the nature of the accommodation, it shows that it was taken for residential purposes.
(3.) THE plea of the tenant that his son was carrying on business, does not appear to be correct as in the year 1970 -71 when the premises were taken on rent the age of his sons except Bhagwan Das was not more than 17 -18 years and his son Abhai Kumar was a student in Laxman Prasad Inter College from 1972 to 1980.;