The purchase of houses by a tenant after the commencement of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, bars his objection to the release of accommodation under Section 21 of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 19. 11. 1997 passed by the prescribed authority respondent No. 2, whereby it allowed the application of respondent No. 3 under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings [regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short referred to as the Act), releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of respondent No. 3. and the order dated 26. 5. 1998 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Mathura, respondent no. 1 affirming the aforesaid order in appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that petitioner is tenant of premises, the old number of which is 168 and new number is 216. The premises in question is situated at Dalpat Khirki, Holi Wall gali, Mathura. Respondent No. 3 filed application for release of this accommodation on 27. 1. 1994 on the allegation that the accommodation in dispute was let out to the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 250 per month at the time when he was 20 years of age and he was not married. He was married four years ago. He was residing with his parents in the house situated in dempeer Nagar. Mathura, which belonged to his mother. In that house, there are four rooms. one kitchen, latrine, bathroom. His parents have three sons, namely, Rajendra Kumar Lakchman prasad, respondent No. 3 and Dharmendra, Rajendra Kumar is married and he has also two children. The accommodation in that house is not sufficient for the members of three families (sic) has also three sisters and though they have been married but they often come to live in that house at Dempeer Nagar, which is not sufficient accommodation. Further some quarrel took place between the members which disturbed the peace of families. It was stated that the tenant-petitioner has his own house in Nagla Bhutlya. His two sons have got house in krishnapurl, Mathura. His two sons are carrying on business at Delhi and constructed house in dempeer Nagar. The tenant has also a big shop in front of the disputed accommodation. The tenant has recently purchased house in Mohalla Antapra, Mathura.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contested the application. It was admitted by him that he is tenant of landlord-respondent No. 3. It was, however, denied that the need of landlord was bona fide. It has stated that he was living in house in Dempeer Nagar. His brother Rajendra Prasad is not residing in house situated at Dempeer Nagar. "dharmendra Kumar, another brother of the landlord is mentally retarded. The landlord is living jointly with parents in joint family.

( 4 ) THE prescribed authority recorded finding that the accommodation in Dempeer Nagar with landlord was not sufficient. He required the disputed accommodation for residential purpose. It was further found that wife of tenant purchased one house on 5. 10. 1982,in Mohalla Krishnapuri and another house on 26. 9. 1990 in Mohalla Antapra. Wife of son of petitioner also purchased house in Dempeer Nagar. On consideration of evidence on record, it was found that the need of landlord was bona fide and he will suffer greater hardship in case his application for release of disputed accommodation is rejected. Further, as the petitioner has purchased house in the name of his wife after enforcement of the Act hence in his objection the Explanation 1 to proviso to section 21 of the Act is applicable. The application was allowed on 19. 11. 1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the said application has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 26. 5. 1998.

( 5 ) I have heard Shri Rajesh Tandon. learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need of landlord was not bona fide. He was living in the house situated in Dempeer Nagar where his parents were living and it is a joint Hindu property. There is no reason to vacate the accommodation where he is living and occupy the disputed accommodation. The learned counsel for the petitioner pla