K.N. Seth, J. - (1.) THIS petition by the tenant is directed against the appellate order allowing the application of the landlord for eviction of the Petitioner.
(2.) THE Respondent -landlord purchased the house in dispute in July 1971. He made an application under Section 3 of the U.P. Act III of 1947 for permission to bring a suit for ejectment of the Petitioner who was occupying the house as a tenant. With the enforcement of Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the proceeding was transferred to the Prescribed Authority. The landlord claimed (hat the house was bona -fide needed for his personal residence as the tenanted accommodation was insufficient and unsuitable for him. It was asserted that the tenant had constructed House No. 43 -B, Dharampur, Dehradun, which was a residential building and that he would not be put to any inconvenience if evicted from the house in question. The stand taken by the tenant was that the need of the landlord was not genuine and he was possessed of several houses in the city of Dehradun. While admitting that he had constructed the building 43 -B, Dharampur, it was alleged that it was not a residential building and that a Nursary School was being run in the building by his daughter -in -law. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application holding that the need of the landlord was not bona fide primarily on the reasoning that if his need had been pressing and urgent he would not have purchased the building in dispute which was occupied by a tenant of long standing. The Prescribed Authority appears to have been impressed by the fact that the Petitioner was in occupation of the building in dispute for the last 35 years or so. He noticed the argument advanced by the landlord that Explanation '1' to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was applicable to the case but did not decide it. No finding was recorded on the allegation of the tenant that the landlord owned several other houses in Dehradun. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that Explanation 'I' was attracted to the case and consequently no objection by the tenant to the application for his eviction could be entertained. The learned District Judge also found the need of the landlord bona fide and directed eviction of the Petitioner. No argument appears to have been advanced on behalf of the tenant that the landlord owned any house apart from the house in question.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Explanation '1' to Section 21(1) of the Act applies to only those cases where the house is constructed by the tenant after the enforcement of the Act and is not attracted in the present case as House No. 43 -B Dharampur was constructed in 1966, long before the enforcement of the Act. The argument is untenable. The said provision runs as follows: Explanation 1. In the case of a residential building: (2) where the tenant or any member of his family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, Municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub -section shall be entertained. The employment of the present perfect tense form "has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition" refers to a completed act, as act done in the past only. It of course carries with it the idea of the continuance of the state of affairs. It is not indicative of something that takes place after the commencement of the Act. If that position was intended the Legislature would have used the expression "builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated after acquisition" after the commencement of the Act. In this connection reference may be made to Section 12(3) of the Act where the present tense form has been employed. The legislative intent in this provision is clear that a tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy if he builds or acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building after the commencement of the Act. The proviso appended to Section 12(3) makes the position further clear. If the tenant or any member of his family had built any such residential building before the date of commencement of the Act then such a tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building after the expiry of the period of one year from the said date. If the legislature intended the Explanation to Section 21(1)(a) to apply only to constructions or acqusition after the commencement of the Act it would have used the expression as is contained in Section 12(3) of the Act. The basic idea underlying these provisions appears to be what there a tenant owns or acquires his own residential accommodation he should not be permitted to keep on occupying a tenanted residential accommodation and it should be made available to the landlord if he needs it for his personal use or it may be allotted to a person who is in the need of a tenanted accommodation. The interpretation sought to be put by the Petitioner shall defeat the very purpose underlying the Explanation.;