The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge have the authority to release the entire accommodation or part thereof in cases of non-residential accommodation, and the nature of the business proposed by the landlord in the accommodation must be considered before concluding that partition of the shop would not meet the landlord's requirement.

S.K. Mookerji, J.

1. This is a petition on behalf of the land-lord challenging the order of the District Judge, Varanasi, dated 24-8-1987.

2. It appears that the land-lord moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for releasing the portion in occupation of respondent no. 2 in which he was having his shop. Petitioner no. 1, Vishwanath Mehta, had retired from service, therefore, he wanted the shop for settling his son, who is unemployed and also to start some business in the shop in question. The Prescribed Authority, after hearing the parties, allowed the application of the land-lord. Thereafter, the tenant filed an appeal (Rent Appeal No. 205 of 1986) in the court of the District Judge, Varanasi. By this order, the shop was directed to be divided into two portions and one portion was ordered to be released in favour of the landlord and the other would remain in occupation of the tenant. Against this order the land-lord has filed the present writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the land-lord initially urged that provision of Rule 16 (1) (d) of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act is applicable only in respect of the residential premises. There is no such provision in respect of non-residential houses, therefore, the learned District Judge, Varanasi, has acted erroneously in dividing the shop in question, as indicated above. This argument has no merit. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision in case-Ram Nath v. District Judge, Varanasi, 1986 UP RCC 525. This judgment goes against the landlord. I also agree with this judgment. It may be noted that when an application is moved, under section 21 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act, it is always within the jurisdiction and power of the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority to release the entire accommodation or a part thereof. In respect of non residential accommodation, for determining the question of bona fide need as well as for determining the comperative hardship of the parties, the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, in appeal, are quite competent to release the entire accommodation or part thereof. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not accepted.

3. The second argument which the learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly relied upon is that the accommodation is quite small and by dividing the same the purpose of the land-lord for running a shop shall not be served. He has fairly conceded that there is no mention about the nature of the business, the land-lord proposed to start, in the accommodation, in question. In absence of that material it cannot be said that partition of the shop shall not meet the requirement of the land-lord. The judgment of the learned District Judge, Varanasi, dated 24-8-1987 is quite legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. It is, however, open for the land-lord, in future, to make an application afresh under section 21 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act if the present accommodation is found, at that point of time, to be inadequate.

4. In the result, this petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs on the parties.

Petition dismissed.