ORDER

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. -- Leave granted. Heard learned counsel.

2. The respondent is the landlord and appellant is the tenant in regard to the petition schedule shop ('shop' for short) situated at Tundla, District Firozabad. The respondent filed an eviction petition before the Prescribed Authority, alleging that she had let out the shop when she and her family was living at Etah, that her family had subsequently shifted to Tundla and that she required the shop for her husband to carry on his business in motor parts. She further alleged that the appellant owned and possessed several shops near to the schedule shop, but had not vacated the shop belonging to her, and that he will not be put to any hardship if he is evicted as he could conveniently shift and occupy his own shop.

3. The appellant herein resisted the said petition. After considering the evidence, the Prescribed Authority, by judgment dated 14.3.2002, allowed the eviction petition under section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ('Act' for short). The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate authority by judgment dated 13.1.2006. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority was also dismissed by the order under appeal dated 28.10.2006.

4. We find that the concurrent findings of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority in favour of the landlord-respondent, on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship, have been rightly affirmed by the High Court and no ground is made out to interfere with the said findings of fact.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the judgment of the High Court suffers from a serious legal infirmity as it wrongly placed reliance upon Explanation (i) in section 21(1) of the Act to hold that it was not necessary for the landlord to prove that her need was bona fide or comparative greater hardship. According to him, explanation (i) applies only to residential buildings and not to non-residential buildings and the High Court could not have relied upon the said provision.

6. For convenience, we may extract the relevant portion of section 21 of the Act as follows :

"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.

(1) 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;

Provided also that the prescribed authority shall, except in cases provided for in the Explanation, take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed.

Explanation.- In the case of a residential building :-

(i) Where the tenant or any member of his family (who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependant on him) has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant a