Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This petition is at the instance of the tenant. The release application which was filed by the landlord under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The landlord filed an appeal before the 7th Additional District Judge, Meerut.
(2.) One of the pleas which was considered in appeal was the fact that the tenant had in the same city a property of his own but would not shift to the building. The plea of the tenant in appeal was that the building which stands on the property is too small to accommodate his large family. This plea did not impress the learned Additional District Judge. The appellate Court, subsequently, came to the conclusion that the moment the tenant acquires a house of his own then, in effect, he cannot resist the release application filed by the landlord. The appellate court relied on the first explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act aforesaid. The tenant did not deny that he had a property and a building on it. The fact that the tenant would not enlarge his premises so as to remain a tenant in anothers property cannot escape the intention of the aforesaid Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 21.
(3.) The Addl. District Judge in appeal thus rightly came to the conclusion that the tenant with a property of his own could not continue to be a tenant in the premises in dispute. The landlord had need and would certainly suffer hardship if the landlord's premises were not released to him. The tenant pleaded] that the landlord had no need for the accommodation in question. The appellate court gave an answer to this that the landlord was an agriculturist of means and he required additional accommodation to park his expensive farm machinery.;