Rule 16 (2) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not exhaustive and does not prohibit the prescribed authority from considering other relevant factors while deciding the landlord's application for release.

R. A. Sharma, J.

1. In view of the conflicting decisions rendered by the learned Single Judges regarding the ambit and scope of Rule 16 (2) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the larger Bench for resolving the conflict. Hon'ble the Chief Justice has accordingly placed this matter before us.

2. SECTION 21 of the Act provides for release of a building under occupation of a tenant. Sub-section (1) (a) of the said SECTION, which is reproduced below, empowers the prescribed authority, on the application of the landlord, to order eviction of a tenant from the building under his tenancy on the ground that it is bona fide required by the landlord: "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 bonafide required either in its existing form or alter, 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.

The fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of the same Section which requires the authority to consider the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant, is quoted below: "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. "

3. RULE 16 deals with application for release on the ground of personal requirements of the landlord. Sub-rule (1) of RULE 16 covers the case when the landlord requires the building for personal occupation for the purposes of his residence or any member of his family. Sub-rule (2) deals with the case when the building has been let out for the purposes of business and is needed for personal requirement of the landlord. RULE 16 (2) (a), the scope and meaning of which has led to the conflicting decisions by learned Single Judges, is relevant and is reproduced below :

"16 (2 ). While considering an application for release under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 in respect of a building let out for purposes of any business, the prescribed authority shall also have regard to such facts as the. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a) The greater the period since when the tenant opposite party, or the original tenant whose heir the opposite party is, has been carrying on his business in that building, the less the justification for allowing the application. "

4. THE fourth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 places obligation on the prescribed authority to consider the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant when considering the application under Section 21 (1) (a) and for that purpose it "shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed". Privy Council in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi, AIR 1943 PC 164 at p. 180 has laid down that the expression "have regard to" certain provisions has no definite or technical meaning and merely requires that those provisions must be taken into consideration. Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630, relevant extract from which is reproduced below, has held that such an expression only requires the concerned authority to consider the relevant facts to which it is req