S.D.Agarwala - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE petitioner is the landlord of the house in dispute. Mahgoo Ram, respondent no. 3, was the original tenant. He has now died and, in his place, his heirs have been substituted. THE property in dispute is house No. B-1/101 and open space of land No. B-1/107, situate in Mohalla Assi, in the city of Varanasi. THE petitioner landlord is staying in a portion of the building, which is occupied by the respondent no. 3. An application for release under section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 28th October, 1974, for release of the tenanted portion on the ground that his family consists of four sons, three of whom were married and have children. He had four daughters; two of whom are unmarried and, as such, he required the accommodation for his residential purposes. He also set up the need for augmenting his income for carrying on other businesses, as the theka of cycle stand, which was with him, in the State Bank of India, has now ceased and, consequently, wanted to start his own business. He further stated that he wanted to start his business for the sons who had not been employed. It was further stated by him that the tenant had constructed a house along with shops very near the accommodation in dispute and thus, consequently, no hardship will be caused to the tenant in case his release application is allowed. The tenant hotly contested the release application and specifically averred that the landlord had got ample accommodation with him. He had got released certain accommodation during the pendency of the release application. He has also let out the same and that he has ample accommodation for carrying on his business and, consequently, his need for residence as well as business was satisfied and the application, consequently, was liable to be rejected.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority by its order dated 29th September, 1980, rejected the release application. Aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act. THE 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, by judgment dated 28th August, 1981, dismissed the appeal. Both the judgments of the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have been challenged by means of the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;