- (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated in Etah. The respondent No. 3 is the landlady of the said shop. She filed an application for the release of the building in the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. This application was allowed by the prescribed Authority and his order has been affirmed by the Second Additional District Judge, Etah by his order dated 29th January, 1976. The landlady's need has been found to be genuine and bona fide and also comparatively greater than that of the tenant. The petitioner tenant has filed this writ petition on the ground that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the aforesaid authorities and that the order releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlady deserves to be quashed.
(2.) THE principal contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there has been no compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules made under the Act. It was contended that although the landlady had stated in her release application that the building was in a dilapidated condition and was required to be pulled down yet the requirements of law as laid down in Rule 17 had not been complied with. It was contended that even if the application for release was one under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that the building was required by the landlady after demolition and new construction the provisions of Rule 17 were attracted and had to be fulfilled. In other words, the contention was that the provisions of Rule 17 were attracted to a case under Section 21 (1) (a) also where the building was required to be demolished and rebuilt. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the provisions of Section 21 (1) and Rule 17 of the Rules made under the Act. It will be worthwhile to reproduce these provisions, Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) reads as follows:- "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (1) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is specified that any of the following grounds exist, namely- (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust; (b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction.. .. ..... " The rest of the provisions of Section 21 are not necessary for the purpose of the case and are being omitted. Rule 17 reads as follows : "17. Application for release on the ground of demolition and new construction (Sections 21 (1) (b) and 34 (8))- (1) Before allowing an application for release of a 'building under Section 21 (1) (b) on the ground that it is required for purposes of demolition and new construction, the Prescribed Authority shall satisfy itself- (i) that the building requires demolition; (ii) that a proper estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction has been prepared; (iii) that a plan has been duly prepared and conforms to the bye-laws or regulations of the local authority or other statutory authority under any law in that behalf for the time being in force; and (iv) that the landlord has the financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction." It was contended that the words 'demolition and new construction' occur both in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) and, therefore, whenever a building was required by the landlord to be demolished for the purposes of reconstruction the provisions of Rule 17 would be applicable, I am unable to accept this contention for Rule 17 is specific and refers only to Section 21 (1) (b) and not to clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. If it was intended that the above provisions would apply to a case under Clause (a) then the Rule would have said so. It will be noticed that clause (a) refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord of the building either in its existing form or after demolition and re-construction. It nowhere refers to the condition of the building. It is only when the building is in a dilapidated condition end is required for purpose of demolition and new construction that the provisions of clause (b) would be attracted. It is, therefore, clear that the emphasis is on its dilapidated condition. A release order may be passed in either case as envisaged in clauses (a) and (b) - but the basis in the two cases is different. In the former the emphasis is on the bona fide requirement of the landlord and in the latter on the necessity to demolish the building because of its condition. The two grounds are entirely different. Rule 17 makes it clear that in cases governed by clause (b) certain facts must be established to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority before the order of release is passed. This is to ensure that the case set up by a landlord is a genuine and bond fide one for the demolition of the building end for the construction of a new building. The Legislature has laid down the guidelines so that a landlord may not use this ground as a device to eject his tenant. The Prescribed Authority has to be satisfied that the building requires demolition, that a proper estimate of expenditure for the proposed demolition and new construction has been made, that a plan has been duly prepared end sanctioned by the authority concerned and that the landlord has a financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. These provisions have not been made applicable to a case under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) Rule 16 provides elaborate guidelines for such cases. None of the clauses of Rule 16 states anything about the condition of the building nor lays down any guidelines for obtaining plans or certificates from engineers or about the means of the landlord to carry out the demolition and reconstruction.
(3.) CLAUSE (a) of Section 21 (1) applies to a case where the building is bona fide required by the landlord either in its existing form or after demolition and re-construction. It would be applicable even to a building which may not be dilapidated. If a building is a small one or an old one or an inadequate one and the landlord requires it to be built a new so as to have a larger floor area or raise a new structure on the existing land for better utilisation he may be given the necessary order of release. What is to be seen in such a case is the bone fide need of the landlord and not the condition of the building. In a case coming under clause (b) the Prescribed Authority has to be satisfied that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. In such a case under clause (b) the release order is required so that the building could be demolished and re-constructed. Clause (b) does not say anywhere that it is required for the personal use of the landlord or any members of his family. It would thus be evident that under clause (a) the emphasis is on the requirement of the landlord whereas under the clause (b) the emphasis is on the dilapidated condition of the building. In view of the clear wordings of Rule 17 and the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) it is not possible to hold that the provisions of Rule 17 also apply in a case under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act.;