- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner landlord has sough quashing of an order, dated 23-7-1980 of the prescribed authority, Bareilly rejecting his application for release of the accommodation in the tenancy of the respondents Nos. 3 to 6, and the order, dated 15-7-1981 of the Additional District Judge Bareilly, dismissing his appeal.
(2.) RELEASE application was filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of Act 13 of 1972 on the ground that while working as a contractor from 1971 in District Shahjahanpur, the petitioner along with his family has been residing in a rented accommodation No. 14 Subhash Road, Shahajahanpur Cantonment. The landlord of the said house filed release application which was allowed despite the petitioner contesting upto High Court stage, the judgment of the High Court being, dated 9-4-1979, the petitioner thereupon had to shift with his family to Bareilly and is living in a portion of the same house which is in the tenancy of the respondents. The petitioner maintains a car, servant and also cattle and requires the accommodation in the tenancy of the respondents to live according to his status. The accommodation being situated in cantonment area, the original unamended provisions of Act 13 of 1972 regarding release of the accommodation which is part of building occupied by the landlord is applicable. The respondent Nos. 3 and 6 are the tenants of a portion of first floor, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the tenants of a portion of the ground floor, the remaining portions of the two floors being in possession of the peti tioner, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in fact now (sic) not reside in this accom modation rather are residing in New Delhi where respondent No. 3 is employed The release application was resisted by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6 on the ground that the need set up by the petitioner is not bonafide or genuine. The petitioner is in the habit of making such a move merely with a view to increase the rent, the respondents are tenants in this premises since more than 30 years, the respondent No 4 is personally occupying her portion and respondent No. 5 also often comes and stays in this house, the petitioner has not correctly shown the various portions of the house and that great hardship will be caused to the petitioners if the release is allowed. Rejecting the plea of landlord regarding application of explanation (iv) to Section 21 as contained in unamended Act 13 of 1972 to be applicable, the prescribed authority held that the landlord does not bonafide require the accommodation in the tenancy of the respondents for his personal occupation rather, he needs for commercial purpose which is not permissible. The needs of the respondent tenants is hard pressing. He accordingly rejected the release application. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the parties have been heard. The question raised at the outset on behalf of the petitioner is regarding the applicability of explanation (iv) to Section 21. It is contended that the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 as they stood on the date of its applica tion to the cantoments in the State of Uttar Pradesh, would continue to apply despite subsequent deletion of the said explanation by U. P. Act 28 of 1976.;