Point of law : Since there is no bar under law upon the landlord in filing the release application, for which he is not even required to serve a notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 upon the tenant, merely because he has given notice and thereafter taken time in filing the release application would not bar the same.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as order dated 3.1.2019 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the release application of respondent no.3-landlord is allowed and the order dated 20.8.2014 is affirmed.

2. The dispute is with regard to a shop under tenancy of the petitioner for which, a release application was filed by respondent no.3-landlord, claiming that both his sons are not having any job and are at the age of marriage, therefore, in the said shop, he intends to engage his sons for carrying on business of computer, mobile phones and other related equipment and materials.

3. Both the courts below have found the need of respondent no.3-landlord bona fide and genuine and directed for eviction of the petitioner from the shop.

4. I have heard for the petitioner Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan and for respondent no.3, Sri Samarth Saxena, learned Advocate and perused the record.

5. The first submission, challenging the impugned orders, raised by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, is that before moving of application under Section 21(1)(c) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short ‘the Act of 1972’), respondent no.3 had moved an application under Section 16 of the Act of 1972, claiming that petitioner is an unauthorized occupant and, therefore, the landlord cannot raise both the arguments simultaneously, that, petitioner is a tenant as well as, that, he is an unauthorized occupant. Thus, both the proceedings simultaneously cannot be held and, therefore, the application under Section 21 of the Act of 1972, is liable to be rejected. For the said purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ravi Shanker vs. Additional District Judge II, Kanpur and others, reported in 1979 ARC 273 and Smt. Suman Lata vs. Prescribed Authority (Munsif), Etawah and others, reported in 1985(2) ARC 454.

6. I have gone through the said judgment and I find that the fact of the case of Ravi Shanker (supra) are entirely different from the facts of the present case. Paragraph-2 of the said judgment notes the facts, which reads:

“2. In this case, the dispute is about one shop of the aforesaid building which had been let out to one Sant Saran. The petitioner filed suit No.1046 of 1976 against Sant Saran and another for ejectment on the ground that as Sant Saran had illegally sublet the shop to Maiku, he was liable to ejectment. During the pendency of the suit before the Civil Court, Respondent No.3 Ram Shankar Shukla made an application for the allotment of the shop under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, on the ground of deemed vacancy. His case was also that as Sant Saran allowed the shop to be occupied by a person, who was not a member of his family, the shop was to be treated as vacated.”

7. Therefore, in the said case, there was no application filed under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 for release of the property along with an application under Section 16. Thus, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

8. So far as the judgment in the case of Smt. Suman Lata (supra) on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, the same is only a judgment running in three paragraphs, which reads as follows:

“1. Notice of this petition was accepted on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 by Sri V.N.L. Katiyar, Advocate.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated 11-7-1984 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Etawah. The landlords respondents No.2 to 8, who are the owners of the premises in dispute, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972. It was averred in the application that the tenant Hulas Rai Bhagan Dass has closed their business and vacated the premises after subletting the premises to respondent No.10 Smt. Jagrani. It was further averred in the application t