Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Smt. Santosh Kumari was the owner of house No. 8, Supentine Road, Bareilly Cantt. She appears to have purchased this house by a sale deed dated August 7, 1956. She retained a few rooms in her possession and let out the rest of it to two tenants, Subedar Balwant Singh and Captain Roshanlal Jetlay. In March 1976, she applied for release of the two rooms under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act on the ground that her husband was in the State Police Service. He was Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Etah. He was due to retire on August 31, 1976. She along with her husband and children desired to live to their own house at Bareilly after retirement.
(2.) THE tenants contested the application. THE Prescribed Authority, however, relying on sub-section (iv) (1-A) of Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 1972, granted the application and directed the eviction of the tenants. THE tenants went up in appeal but failed. THEy have now come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The lower appellate court held that it was established that the owner's husband was in the police service. He retired in 1976. Till his retirement, he was in occupation of goverment residence at Etah. It was also observed : "It is also not denied that cessation of service of the husband of the landlady will have the same effect as the cessation of service of the landlady." Accordingly, the landlady was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (iv) (1-A). Under it the courts were not permitted to look into the comparative needs of the landlord and the tenant. On this view the appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed. Section 21 provides for release of buildings in occupation of tenants. Subsection (iv) (1-A) says: "Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2, the Prescribed Authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from any building under tenancy if it is satisfied that the landlord of such building was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of the cessation of his employment : Provided that an application under this sub-section may also be given by a landlord in occupation of such public building at any time within a period of one year before the expected date of cessation of his employment but the order of eviction on such application shall take effect only on the date of his actual cessation. Clause (j) of Section 3 defines a landlord as follows :- "(j) 'landlord' in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building, were let would be, payable, and includes except in clause (g), the agent or attorney of such person." Clause (g) defines "family" in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building. It includes his or her spouse, male lineal descendants, parents, etc., and also includes, in relating to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building.
(3.) SECTION 3 which is the definition section, begins by saying 'In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.' Though the definition of landlord in clause (j) excludes the agent or attorney of such person, except for purposes of clause (g), yet it cannot be gainsaid that the agent or attorney would not be included within the meaning of the word 'landlord' as occurring in SECTION 21 (iv) (1-A) of the Act. Sub-section (iv) (1-A), gives a personal privilege to the landlord to apply for release on satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in it. It will be preposterous if the landlord is supposed to include the agent or attorney of the tenants for purposes of sub-section (iv) (1A). It is significant that the word 'landlord' unlike the definition of the word 'family' does not include the spouse of the landlord or his children or his parents. In my opinion, the term 'landlord' as defined will not include the husband of the person who really is the owner or the landlord of the building.;