JUDGMENT

K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, not to proceed with the landlord's application filed against the Petitioner u/s 21 of the said Act. The Petitioner, Messrs Jado Ram Hira Lal, which is a partnership firm, has filed the present petition through Suraj Mal, a registered partner of the firm. The Petitioner has been a tenant of premises No. 6/28, Bara Bhai Ki Gali, (sic) Agra, since long. It has been carrying on Arhat business in the premises in dispute. Sri Babu Ram Agarwal, Respondent No. 2, is the landlord of the premises in question. After the enforcement of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, Sri Babu Ram Agarwal filed an application before the Prescribed Authority u/s 21 of the Act with a prayer that the building be released in his favour and the Petitioner be evicted from the accommodation in question. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition before this Court challenging the validity of the proceedings initiated by the landlord u/s 21 of the Act for the Petitioner's eviction.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner cannot be evicted from the premises in dispute unless a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to him terminating his tenancy and since no such notice had been given by the landlord the Petitioner cannot be evicted from the premises in question. Learned Counsel further urged that the provisions of Sec 106 of the Transfer of Property Act were mandatory and the Petitioner cannot be ejected from the accommodation in dispute u/s 21 of the Act without complying with those mandatory provisions and without having recourse to Civil Court.

3. The impugned Act is a special Act regulating the letting, fixation of rent, eviction and matters connected therewith for providing relief to the general public as there is scarcity of housing accommodation. Section 21 of the Act lays down conditions and circumstances under which a landlord may apply before the Prescribed Authority for eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof. If the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that any of the grounds enumerated in Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act exists, he may order eviction of the tenant from such accommodation. The grounds on which a tenant is liable to be evicted Under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act are that the building is bonafide required by the landlord himself or any member of his family or that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and new construction. Under Sub-section (2) of the said section the Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord, order the eviction of a tenant from any surplus land appurtenant to the building under tenancy or from a portion thereof. Sub-section (3) lays down that before an order of eviction is passed against the tenant a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given to the parties concerned. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 further provides that an order of eviction may be passed by the Prescribed Authority Under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) notwithstanding the fact that the tenancy has not been determined. Sub-section (5) of Section 21 lays down that on the passing of an order Under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the building or part or appurtenant land, as the case may be, shall stand released in favour of the landlord. Sub-section (6), however, lays down that on the expiration of a period of thirty days from an order Under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the tenancy of the tenant shall stand determined in its entirety or, as the case may be, in respect of any party or appurtenant land released in favour of the landlord. Sect