Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondents No. 2 to 4, Smt. Ram Rati and others on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No. 14 of 1988. Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur through judgment and order dated 17.5.1991, allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order, tenants respondents filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 210 of 1991. Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Gorakhpur through judgment and order dated 18.1.1993, allowed the appeal, set -aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and dismissed the release application hence this writ petition by the landlord. Accommodation in dispute is double storied having four small rooms and four verandahs on the ground floor and one room and a verandah on the first floor. House in dispute is situate in Hazaripur, Gorakhpur rent of which is Rs. 8/ - per month. The tenancy is continuing for about last 75 years (since about 1930).
(2.) LANDLORD pleaded that he had three sons and two of them were to be married soon. Landlord further pleaded that he intended to establish two of his sons in the business from the accommodation in dispute for which he would convert the verandah on the ground floor into two shops and rest of the portion of ground floor would be utilized for residential purpose by one son after marriage and the first floor portion would be utilized for the residential purpose by his other son after marriage. As far as accommodation in possession of landlord is concerned, he pleaded that he had only three rooms in his occupation. Tenant countered the said plea and stated that landlord had five rooms in his possession. Landlord had also pleaded that tenant was posted at Lucknow hence he was residing there along with his entire family and was keeping the house in dispute locked. Prescribed authority found all the allegations of the landlord to be correct and allowed the release application.
(3.) TENANT had also asserted that by virtue of clause (ii) of third proviso to section 21 of the Act, residential building could not be released for occupation for business purposes. Even the Appellate Court which decided the matter in favour of the tenant held that by virtue of the authority of this Court in Ram Kali v. A.D.J., 1985 (11) ALR 805, residential accommodation could be released for residential and commercial needs hence release application seeking release on both the grounds i.e. residential as well as commercial need was quite maintainable.;