S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) Petitioner Azad Kumar Gupta has directed this petition against the eviction order dated 1-10-1985 passed against him in proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
(2.) The dispute in the petition partains to a godown situate at Aminabad, Lucknow. Landlord's case was that he required the said godown for setting-up his son in business. According to the landlord the son was unemployed. The two courts below have recorded concurrent findings to the affect that the petitioner's son is unemployed and therefore, the accommodation in dispute is required for setting him up in the business. This finding of fact does not suffer from any apparent error.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the application moved by the petitioner was filed under clause (b) of Section 21 (1) of the Act and compliance has not been made of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. Compliance of Rule 17 is required in respect of application made under Clause (b) of Section 21 (1). Such compliance is not required where application is made under Clause (a). A copy of application under Section 21 is on record as Annexure No. 1 from a perusal of this application it would appear that the landlord first of all indicates that the accommodation in dispute was required by him for setting-up his son in business. Thereafter as a passing reference it was stated that the accommodation in question was quite dilapidated and would require renovation. It is on this basis that the learned Counsel submitted that the application was under Clause (b) and therefore, compliance of Rule 17 was necessary. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel. The application was under Clause (a) and only as passing reference it was stated that the godown was in dilapidated condition and would require renovation. In the circumstances, order of eviction cannot be faulted on account of non-compliance of Rule 17.;