Rule 16 (1) (d) of the rules framed under the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 does not apply to non-residential buildings.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the prescribed authority, Budaun dated 30. 11. 1992 allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal against the said order on 30. 5. 1994.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Respondent No. 3 purchased the disputed shop by a registered sale deed on 15. 6. 1981 from its erstwhile owner Sri Vinay Krishna Rastogi. The petitioner was its tenant-Respondent No. 3 gave a notice to him on 18. 3. 1985 that he requires the accommodation bona fide for carrying on business and the tenant-petitioner should vacate the same. The petitioner did not vacate the disputed shop. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 7. 10. 1985 for release of the shop in question on the allegation that his family consisted of himself, his wife, widowed mother and two grown up children. He was carrying on gold ornaments business at his residence for which he was holding a valid licence under the provisions of Gold Control Act. The price of gold had enormously increased and, therefore, customers did not visit his residence for the purposes of manufacture of gold ornaments and his work of manufacturing gold ornaments started decreasing day by day. He had no other shop to carry on his business and required the shop in question for carrying on the business. The petitioner contested the application and it was denied that the landlord required the shop in question to carry on the business. It was pleaded that he could continue his manufacturing work of gold ornaments at his residence. The petitioner was carrying on business of Sutli, rope, Ban etc. and had earned goodwill and there was no other shop available to him in the vicinity of the shop in question. The prescribed authority, on consideration of the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide and genuine and he will suffer greater hardship in the case his application is rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal and his appeal was dismissed on 30. 5. 1994 by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the finding on the question of bona fide need is perverse or suffers from any illegality. Both the authorities have recorded concurrent findings that respondent No. 3 requires the shop in question for carrying on the business of sale of gold ornaments in the shop in question and he has no other shop except the disputed one which he had purchased by registered sale deed on 15th June, 1981.

( 4 ) SRI. K. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner, suggested that the disputed shop be partitioned and a portion of the shop be released in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner had not taken this plea in his written statement before the prescribed authority nor this point was urged before the prescribed authority. In the appeal also, the petitioner did not urge that only a part of the shop in question be released in favour of the landlord which may satisfy his need to carry on the business of sale and manufacture of gold ornaments. In absence of any such plea or material to show that a part of the shop in question will satisfy the need of the landlord, the petitioner is not justified to raise this point for the first time in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the principles laid down under Rule 16 (1) (d) of the rules framed under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 should be made applicable in respect of non-residential buildings as well. He has placed reliance upon the decision Smt. Raj Rani Mehrotra v. IInd Additional Dist