Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by a tenant against the order passed in proceedings under the U.P. Urban Build ing (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter re ferred to as the Act). An application was moved under Section 21 (1) of the Act for release of the accommodation. The application was rejected by the prescribed authority. The landlord went up in ap peal. The appeal was allowed and the eviction of the tenant has been ordered. According to the finding of the appellate court, the landlord lives on the first floor while the tenant lived on the ground floor. The latrine, which is on the ground floor, was in common use. He also found that at some time the water tap was also common. On these findings he came to the conclusion that the case was covered by Ex planation (iv) to Section 21 (1) of the Act. Accordingly he held that the building was bona fide required by the landlord. The appellate court then recorded the finding that the need of the tenant was com paratively greater than the need of the landlord, but still allowed the appeal because, according to him, the need of the landlord was bona fide.
(2.) THE first question that arises for consideration is whether Ex planation (iv) to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act applies to the facts of the present case. Explanation (iv) runs as under: - "The fact that the building under tenancy is a part of a build ing the remaining part whereof is in the occupation of the land lord for residential purposes, shall be conclusive to prove that the building is bona fide required by the landlord." It has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the 'building under tenancy' is a part of the entire building and hence explanation (iv) applies. The contention of the petitioner on the other hand is that the word 'building' here is only a synonym for the word 'ac commodation' as was used in U.P. Act III of 1947. In case the words 'building under tenancy' are given the meaning of 'accommodation under tenancy', then the expression 'building the remaining part whereof is in occupation of the landlord' will mean the accommoda tion the remaining part whereof is in occupation of the landlord; and it will have to be seen whether the accommodation with the tenant is part of the entire accommodation or not. If, however, the word 'building' is given a wider meaning as including the entire super structure then of course, the ground floor being part of the super structure will be part of building the remaining part whereof is in the occupation of the landlord. Under the old Act premises to be dealt with for purposes of con trol of letting was called an 'accommodation'. It was defined in Sec tion 2 (a): - "(a) 'accommodation' means residential and non-residental ac commodation in any building or part of a building and includes, (i) gardens, grounds and outhouses, of any appurtenant to such building or part of a building; (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of a building; (iii) any fitting affixed to such building or part of a building for the mere beneficial enjoyment thereof, but does not include any accommodation used as a factory for an in dustrial purpose where the business carried on in or upon the build ing is also leased out to the lessee by the same transaction."
(3.) IN the present Act the premises to be dealt with for purposes of letting have been described as 'building'. The definition of building given in Section 3(i) is as under: - "'building', means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes- (i) any land (including any garden), garages and ou1 houses, appurtenant to such building; (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building; (iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof." ;