The landlord's right to evict tenants for personal use and reconstruction under Section 21(2) of the Act is upheld, with procedural objections deemed waived due to lack of timely challenge.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These four petitions are by four separate tenants of the same landlord and were proceeded with for release/eviction in respect of the tenanted shops under Section 21(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (in short 'Act') on same grounds. The order of eviction has been passed in respect of all the tenants by separate orders passed by the rent authority that were unsuccessfully challenged in rent appeal. Hence these four petitions are filed both against the order of rent authority as well as of appellate Tribunal. Since these petitions raise common question of fact and law, therefore, they are heard and decided together.

3. There is no dispute between the petitioners and the landlord regarding jural relationship of tenant-landlord. The landlord came to file release application under Section 21(2) of the Act basically on the plea that behind the four shops with Chabutra in question there is an open space of land belonging to landlord which he wanted to use to house the stocks of iron bars, guarders, squares etc. as godown and further to install two gates for the exit and entry of goods with office and washroom on both sides. In order to raise these constructions, he needed to demolish the standing shops and this had become necessary because a lane lying on eastern side of the plot was such narrow that heavy vehicles like Truck, Tractor and Trolley cannot be brought in to the godown. Yet another plea was that the constructions are also in dilapidated stage. Thus, a personal need for the release of the shops was set up to convert the building to be used as godown.

4. An objection was filed by the tenants opposing the release and denying the averments made in paragraph No. 2 only to the extent that whatever has been stated in paragraph No. 2 was not accepted. The landlord/respondent filed an affidavit in evidence in support of the pleadings raised, reiterating the stand and further filed a document of spot map showing the location of shop and the surroundings. The rent authority after hearing the parties and perusing the records, returned a finding that respondent needed the shop in question to be demolished to use the area of vacant plot as godown and to install two large gates and washroom and also office on both sides. The Court also recorded that the landlord had placed the map and also the income tax return in corroboration of pleadings and thus granted the application directing the petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises. The Prescribed Authority further directed for payment of Rs. 125/- as rent to be payable from January 2019 till the tenanted premises was evicted.

5. This order was sought to be challenged in appeal on various grounds including the ground that the presentation of application under Section 21(2) of the Act was not in accordance with the procedure and the format prescribed under rule 7 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Rules, 2021 (in short 'Rules'). The Court of appeal has affirmed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, hence these petitions.

6. Assailing the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the appellate authority, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh has raised following points:

(i) The Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority failed to record any finding as to the feasibility of the plot and the area in question to be used as a godown making it necessary to demolish the shops, inasmuch as, there was no finding, nor there is any measurement provided by the landlord/respondent as to what exactly was the area of vacant land behind the shop which could have been used as godown;

(ii) Neither the application for eviction/release was maintainable under clause (e) of Section 21(2), nor clause (m) of Sectio