Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the land in dispute under Section 21 (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act') and the order of the respondent No. 1 dated 7.3.1998 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (2) of the Act against the petitioner claiming release of surplus land in Premises No. 14A Radha Nagar (Delbill Nagar). Mathura on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of an accommodation whose covered area was 676 sq. ft. and the total land was 5701 sq. ft. It was further alleged, that the surplus land was needed by her family to raise construction for which she had obtained permission from the Mathura-Vrtndaban Development Authority, Mathura.
(3.) The petitioner contested the application that the landlady did not require the land to raise any construction for her personal need and there was no surplus land in the tenancy of the petitioner. He further stated that some constructions including Septic Tank, Water Tank, Chabutra, Cow Shed, Coupe for hen, Kitchen. Bathroom and tin-shed, etc. were in his tenancy and they have not been shown in the site plan of the application. The Prescribed Authority appointed a Commissioner. He submitted a report that the constructed portion was 676 sq. ft. and the total land under the tenancy of the petitioner was 5701 sq. ft. He found that the map has been sanctioned by the Mathura-Vrindaban Development Authority, Mathura and the petitioner was entitled to get release the surplus land. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order before the District Judge Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the appeal on 7.3.1998. I have heard Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents mis-interpreted the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Act and wrongly declared the land as surplus land. His contention is that the area covered by the constructed portion as well as appurtenant land should be first calculated and double the area of such land should be left to the tenant and whatever remains thereafter, can be declared as surplus land. Section 21 (2) reads as under : "The Prescribed Authority may on an application of the landlord in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from any surplus land appurtenant to the building under tenancy if it is satisfied that the land is required for constructing one or more new buildings, or for dividing it into several plots with a view to the sale thereof for purposes of construction of new buildings, and in either case, that the competent authority under any law for the time being in force has approved a plan for the said purpose. Explanation.--Where the appurtenant land including passage exceeds double the covered area of the building, excess area shall be deemed to be surplus land.";