- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28-9-1993, passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the order dated 4-5- 1994, passed by respon dent No. 1, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application purporting to be under Section 21 (1-A) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the allegation that respondent No. 4 is owner of the house in question to the extent of half share and remaining half share of the ancestral house is in possession of his younger brother. Her husband respondent No. 3 is realising the rent and they are landlords of the house in question. It was stated that husband of respondent No. 4, namely. Om Prakash was an employee of U. P. State Electricity Board at its Thermal Power Station, Harduwaganj, Qashimpur, Aligarh and he was to retire from service on 31-7- 1991. He was occupying the accommodation provided by the U. P. State Electricity Board and after retirement he has to vacate it. They needed the accom modation for residential purpose. They claimed that the accommodation in question will be released under Section 21 (1-A) of the Act which provides that in case the landlord was in occupation of a public building for residential purpose which he had to vacate on account of cessation of his employment, he can move application for release of the accommodation. The petitioner contested the application. It was al leged that the husband of respondent No. 4 was not the landlord. The applicants do not need the accommodation in question. The Prescribed Authority found that the husband of respondent No. 3 was in service of U. P. State Electricity Board and has retired from service on 31-7-1991 and after retirement they want to settle themselves in the accommodation in question for residential purpose. There is no other accommodation except the house in question. The application for release was allowed purporting to be under Section 21 (1-A) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority did not compare the need of the petitioner with that of landlord-respondents. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. J. Munir, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that Smt. Gayatri Devi was owner as well as landlord of the premises in question. Her husband was not the landlord. As respondent No. 3 was not the landlord, the application filed by him under Section 21 (1-A) of the Act was not maintainable.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contended that though Smt. Gayatri Devi was owner of the house in question but her husband was realising the rent and he can also be treated as landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (j) of the Act which provides that the word 'landlord' includes a person to whom the rent is pay able and includes except in clause (g), the agent or attorney of such person. A person can be taken as landlord for the purpose of realising rent etc. under Section 3 (j) of the Act, but as he is not entitled to occupy the building let out to a tenant in his own right, he cannot be treated as landlord for the purpose of filing application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act for his own occupation. In Prem Chandra Pachit v. Second Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1978 ARC 394, wherein a Manager, who was looking after the business of the landlord and realising the rent, filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for his personal need, it was held that he will not be treated as landlord for the purpose of getting an accommodation released in his favour under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Similarly, in Smt. Sughra Begum v. Sri Ram and others, 1983 (2) A. R. C. 143, the argument was raised that an attorney or agent is landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (j) of the Act and is entitled to file application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for his own need. This contention was not accepted and it was held that he may be landlord for the purpose of realising rent but for the purpose of filing an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act such person must be entitled to occupy the premises in the own right. The expression "occupation for himself or for family members" has been used by the Legislature to manifest its intention that the landlord is entitled to occupy for his own purpose alone and can seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement. The Supreme Court considering the provisions of Section 11 (1) (c) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act (Act 3 of 1947) held that the definition of landlord as given in Section 2 (d) is couched in a very wide language but the amplitude of the expression has been cut down by the explanation to clause (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 11. It is only such person who has a right to occupy the building, is entitled to file application for his personal requirement.;