The scope of section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are entirely different, and the considerations for applying the provisions of these clauses are also different.

M.P. Singh

1. PETITIONERS were the tanants. Opposite parties nos. 3 to 5, who are the landlords, filed an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition, it needed demolition and reconstruction. Petitioners filed an objection denying the case of the landlords.

2. LANDLORDS filed the application for release on the ground that the disputed shop was about hundred years old and was in a dilapidated condition, two rear portions have already fallen down and front portion was also likely to fall down. The shop was irreparable. The demolition and reconstruction was a must. The plan has also been sanctioned by the Nagar Palika. They wanted to demolish the shop after it was released and reconstruct new shops to augment their income as well.

The prescribed authority allowed the application for release against which the petitioners filed an appeal. It was dismissed on 15-1-1993. This writ petition is directed against the said order.

3. A careful perusal of the release application shows that it was an application under section 21 (1) (b) and not under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The ingredients of this sub-section have not at all been pleaded. Merely mentioning the provision of section 21 (1) (a) in the application will not change its nature.

4. THE appellate authority made a spot inspection on 12-1-93. THE inspection note (paper No. 42/1-A) forms part of the record.

Petitioners' case was that the respondents are not the landlords of the shops. The application for release was not maintainable at their instance. The landlords came forward with the case that a family partition had already taken place, as a result thereof the disputed shops fell in their share and they are owner and landlords

5. THE appellate authority while discussing the dilapidated condition of the building has agreed with the finding of the prescribed authority on page 9 of its judgment that the projection having fallen down and the northern wall of the front portion of the shop was slightly damaged and the front walls of the front portion were a little bent. But, it found, that there was nothing on record to show that the shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition. It was of the view that the entire shop was not in dilapidated condition. After this finding, it was not necessary for it to examine the bonafide need and comparative hardship of the landlords which is the requirement of section 21 (1) (a) of the Act.

6. I am of the view that since the application was only under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act the appellate authority, after finding that the building was not in a dilapidated condition, had no alternative but to pass suitable orders as required under the said provision.

The appellate authority has relied upon a decision M/s. Panchamal Narayan Shenoy v. Pasthivenkalestha Sheonoy, AIR 1971 SC 942. The law laid down in that case is of no assistance in the instant case. In that case the Supreme Court had considered the scope of section 21 (1) (J) of the Mysore Rent Control Act which is entirely different from section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Section 21 (1) (J) is a sort of amalgamation of section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

7. THE scope of section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the Act are entirely different. While deciding an application under sub-clause (a) the prescribed authority has to satisfy itself that the building is bonafide required either in its existing form or after 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. But while considering the application under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act the Prescribed authority has only to examine whether the building was in a dilapidated condition and it required