Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) Shri Sohan Lal, respondent No, 3, was the owner of the accommodation as well as the appurtenant land in dispute. He applied under section 21(2) of the Rent Control Act for release of the surplus land. The prayer was that surplus land appurtenant to the accommodation measuring about 400 Sq. yds. may kindly he released. He stated that the accommodation covered approximately 50 Sq. yds., while the balance about 400 Sq. yds. was lying vacant. The landlord wished to make new building in that portion. In support, he filed plans of the building as sanctioned by the municipal authorities.
(2.) The petitioner contested the proceedings but ultimately the Prescribed Authority allowed the application for release. It held that according to the applicant the constructed portion is 50 Sq. yds. while according to the opposite party it is 100 Sq. yds. Even if the case of the opposite party is accepted, the constructed area is lesser than half of the entire area of the plot. So the appurtenant land is surplus according to the Explanation under sub-section (2) of Section 21. The same view was expressed by the District Judge who dismissed the appeal. He held that the covered area is only 50 Sq. yds. while the appurtenant area is 400 Sq. yds. So the excess area shall be deemed to be surplus land.
(3.) Mr. Bhatnagar, appearing for the petitioner-tenant, urged that the landlord had built another house in Meerut where he was running his ice cream factory and was also residing and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he wanted the release of this surplus land in order to make constructions was unbelievable. Both the courts have believed the landlord's case. In the next place, sub-section (2) of Section 21 does not mention the purpose for which the buildings are proposed to be constructed and, therefore, the fact that the landlord mentioned the fact that he wanted to build the constructions for his residence may not now be material, yet the question for consideration is whether he needed this land for construction of buildings. The fact that the proposal is to utilise the building after construction for one purpose but ultimately it would be utilised for other purposes, would not be material for granting release of the surplus land.;