S.D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the revisional order dated 6th March, 1979 by which the application for release moved under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has been allowed.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The property in dispute is House No. 3 -A/10, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Respondent No. 1 admittedly is the owner of the said property. A.P. Mathur, the Petitioner is the tenant. It is further admitted that the Petitioners' wife Smt. Kamla Devi had constructed a house in the same city of Kanpur in 1964 which is numbered as 130/20, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. This was let out to the U.P. State Electricity Board instead of landlord occupying the said premises immediately after construction. The Respondent No. 1, Munshi Singh the owner of the disputed premises applied for release under Section 16 of the Act on the ground that the property should be deemed vacant under Section 12(3) of the Act. This application was rejected by the prescribed authority on the ground that the property could not be deemed vacant under Section 12 of the Act. A revision was filed against that order. In revision the District Judge, Kanpur by his judgment dated 6th March, 1979 allowed the revision and held the property to be vacant and further found that the need of the Respondent No -1 was bonafide, hence released the accommodation in favour of Respondent No. 1. Aggrieved the Petitioner -tenant has filed the present petition in this Hon'ble Court. Shri J.N. Tewari, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the legislative intent behind enacting Sub -clause (5) of Section 12 of the Act is that only such property should be deemed vacant under sub Clause (3) of the Act where the tenant has a further right to get his own property vacated under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. If there is a denial of this right, then the property could not be released under Section 12 of the Act.
(3.) SHRI K.L. Grover on the other hand submitted that Sub -clause (3) of Section 12 of the Act was in existence prior to the Sub -clause (5) of the Act which came into existence by virtue of the U.P. Act 28 of 1976. This was an additional right given to the tenant but this does not in any manner affect the property being deemed vacant under Sub -clause (3) of the Act.;