J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's counsel Sri R. B. Slnghal. Sri A. K. Srivastava is present for the caveator- landlord.
(2.) Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the house in question which is admittedly in the tenancy of the petitioner. This application was contested by the petitioner. The application for release has been allowed mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 4 is a Major in Indian Army and, therefore, the case is covered by Explanation (iii) of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The said Explanation is in the nature of an exception which has the effect of lifting the rigour of proving the bona fide need by the landlord, who is a serving or retired Indian Soldier as defined under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925. The need of the landlord on the existence of the conditions envisaged under such Explanation is to be deemed sufficient by a legal fiction. In the present case, it is not disputed that respondent No. 4 is an Indian Soldier as defined under the Act referred to in the aforesaid Explanation. The finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below further is that the respondent No. 4 is serving outside Muzaffarnagar where the tenanted accommodation is sititated. It has been also found as a fact that the said respondent requires the house in question for keeping his wife and children therein in order to educate his children as he is on a transferable post and gets posted from one station to another. To his case, therefore. Explanation aforesaid is fully attracted and need shall be presumed to be bona fide. With these findings, the release application has been allowed.
(3.) Like the Explanation (iii) to Section 21 (1), a similar provision exists in Section 13A1 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, 1947. The Supreme Court while dealing with a case falling under the provisions of Section 13A1 in the case of Shivram Anand Shiroor v. Mrs. Radhabai Shantaram Kowshik, 1984 (1) SCC 588, held as under : "Notwithstanding the expressed legislative bias in farm of the tenant, the Legislature itself made a serious departure from the general rule so as to lean in favour of landlords who are or were members of the armed services, and who because of exigencies of their service were not able to occupy their own premises during the course of their service Section 13A1 was enacted, relaxing the rigour of Section 13 in favour of a landlord who is or was a member of the armed forces.";