SATISH CHANDRA, C. J.

Finding a conflict of opinion in Single Judge decisions of this court, another Honble Judge has referred this writ petition for decision by a larger Bench. The respondent landlord applied for release of the house under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, His case was that he was carrying on business at Varanasi. He has become old and has retired from the business, which is being run by his sons. He wants to come back to Bareilly, his home town, settling there permanently. He needs the house in dispute, of which he is the owner, for his personal residence. The petitioner tenant has acquired a house from the Co-operative Housing Scheme under a hire-purchase agreement. The tenant has let out that house at Rs. 300/- per month as rent. The tenant contested. He denied that the landlord wished to retire from his business or settled down at Bareilly. The House which he had purchased is not vacant, because it was in possession of a tenant. The Prescribed Authority found that the landlord really wished to retire from his business and settle down at Bareilly. The tenant has acquired a house, and therefore he was not entitled to raise any objection. The application for release was allowed. The tenant went up in appeal, which failed. The findings were affirmed. The tenant has now come to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted: -

(1) The Explanation (i) of Section 21 (1) of the Rent Control Act is not attracted:

(2) That Explanation (ii) having been repealed during the pendency of the proceedings in the court below, became inapplicable and they could not in law rely on it. Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) provided: - "explanation:-In the case of a residential building-

(i) Where the tenant or any member of his family 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 against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained. "

The language of this Explanation emphasises that the tenant must have built or acquired a residential building, in presenti. The word used is has in both the sub-clauses of the Explanation. It, therefore, appears to us that this Explanation would apply to a case where the tenant has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building, after the coming into force of the Rent Control Act of 1972 on July 15, 1972. It will not cover a case where the tenant may have built or otherwise acquired in a vacant state or got vacated after acquisition a residential building prior to July 15, 1972. In the present case the tenant had pleaded that he had acquired the house under hire-purchase agreement in 1969 or 19:70. Neither the Prescribed Authority nor the District Judge has recorded any finding as to the time when the house was acquired. The application of the first Explanation to the present case is hence doubtful. The second explanation to Section 21 (1) provided-

(ii) Where the landlord was engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment, away from the city, municipality, notified area or town area within which the building is situate and by reason of the cessation of such engagement, he needs the building for occupation by himself for residential purposes, such need shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of clause (a ). The finding is that the landlord has proved his plea. On the finding the second Explanation squarely applied. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the Explanation was deleted by Amending Act 28 of 1976, which came into force on July 5, 1976. The second Explanation provided a rule of evidence. Hence, its repeal was retrospective, in the sense that it applied to pending suits. The courts below were in error in basing their judgment on this Explanation. Learned counsel appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document