Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10184 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000046 of 2014 Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Tewari Respondent :- Additional District And Session Judge Court No.12 Lko.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd.Aslam Khan,Ravi Kant Shukla,Shraddha Agarwal,Vineeta Jain Counsel for Respondent :- Syed Aftab Ahmad Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Syed Aftab Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the release application filed by the petitioner under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1972") was rejected as well as order dated 24.7.2013 whereby the appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner being a landlord moved an application seeking eviction under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act of 1972. In the said application, it was specifically pleaded that the tenant is in occupation the part of premise for residential purposes and the landlord was developing the other part for commercial complex for which a map was also sanctioned. It was pleaded that need of the applicant for the accommodation is most urgent, genuine and bona fide as such the said accommodation is required by the applicant for completing its commercial complex. The prescribed authority dismissed the application in view of a specific bar contained under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act of 1972 and its proviso attached to it wherein it is prescribed as under :- "21. The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely- (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust : (b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction: Provided that where the building was in the occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the commencement of this Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in clause (a), unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application, and such notice may be given even before the expiration of the aforesaid period of three years : Provided further that if any application under clause (a) is made in respect of any building in which the tenant is engaged in any profession, trade or calling, the prescribed authority while making the order of eviction shall, after considering all relevant facts of the case, award against the landlord to the tenant an amount equal to two years' rent as compensation and may, subject to rules, impose such other conditions as he thinks fit : Provided also that no application under clause (a) shall be entertained- (i) for the purposes of a charitable trust, the objects of which provide for discrimination in respect of its beneficiaries on the ground of religion, caste or place of birth ; (ii) in the case of any residential building, for occupation for business purposes : (iii) in the case of any residential building, against any tenant who is a member of the armed forces of the Union and in whose favour the prescribed authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, '1925 has Issued a certificate that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of section 3 of that Act, or where he has died by enemy action while so serving then against his heirs." The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal holding that in view of the bar prescribed in the proviso, the release application is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this court dated 21.8.2015 passed in Writ -A No.26501 of 2008 : Sri Rehanul Haq @ Kallu Vs. Imranul Haq wherein this Court had the occasion to consider the said proviso and held that as per the said pleadings, the entire front portion of the building was being used for commercial purposes and thus, for the dominant purpose of the building was commercial and the said building is not being termed to be a residential. The second judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Banswar Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Jaisawal : 2023 SCC Online All 2640 where the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the second provision to Section 21 (1) (a) and the court allowed the application filed by the landlord on the ground that they need set was entirely independent which was found to be genuine by this Court. In the light of the said, it is argued that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgement in view of the specific bar under Clause 21 (1) (a) and its proviso. Considering the fact that Clause (ii) of the Second proviso, bars to entertain the said application and in the present case, in the application itself it has been stated that the tented house is being used for residential purpose and the said portion was required by the landlord for developing the commercial complex, the bar under Clause (ii) of second proviso stood triggered on the date of filing the application itself. There has been no pleading that the tenanted portion of the building was partly commercial and partly residential, hence the judgement in the case of Rehanul Haq (supra) would be of no benefit to the petitioner. The issue with regard to the bar of Clause (ii) was neither raised nor considered in the case of Vijay Kumar Banswar (supra) as such both the judgements do not benefit the petitioner. Once the application itself is clear that the tenanted portion was used for residential purpose and the release was sought for commercial purpose in view of bar contained in Clause (ii) of proviso to Section 21(1) (a) of the Act of 1972, the petition could not have been entertained and was liable to be dismissed and was rightly rejected. No good ground is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty avail the remedies as are available under law. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench