Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Banswar vs In the light of the said, it is argued that the

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this court dated 21.8.2015 passed in Writ -A No.26501 of 2008 : Sri Rehanul Haq @ Kallu Vs. Imranul Haq wherein this Court had the occasion to consider the said proviso and held that as per the said pleadings, the entire front portion of the building was being used for commercial purposes and thus, for the dominant purpose of the building was commercial and the said building is not being termed to be a residential. The second judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Banswar Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Jaisawal : 2023 SCC Online All 2640 where the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the second provision to Section 21 (1) (a) and the court allowed the application filed by the landlord on the ground that they need set was entirely independent which was found to be genuine by this Court. In the light of the said, it is argued that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgement in view of the specific bar under Clause 21 (1) (a) and its proviso. Considering the fact that Clause (ii) of the Second proviso, bars to entertain the said application and in the present case, in the application itself it has been stated that the tented house is being used for residential purpose and the said portion was required by the landlord for developing the commercial complex, the bar under Clause (ii) of second proviso stood triggered on the date of filing the application itself. There has been no pleading that the tenanted portion of the building was partly commercial and partly residential, hence the judgement in the case of Rehanul Haq (supra) would be of no benefit to the petitioner. The issue with regard to the bar of Clause (ii) was neither raised nor considered in the case of Vijay Kumar Banswar (supra) as such both the judgements do not benefit the petitioner. Once the application itself is clear that the tenanted portion was used for residential purpose and the release was sought for commercial purpose in view of bar contained in Clause (ii) of proviso to Section 21(1) (a) of the Act of 1972, the petition could not have been entertained and was liable to be dismissed and was rightly rejected. No good ground is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty avail the remedies as are available under law. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Shukla ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this court dated 21.8.2015 passed in Writ -A No.26501 of 2008 : Sri Rehanul Haq @ Kallu Vs. Imranul Haq wherein this Court had the occasion to consider the said proviso and held that as per the said pleadings, the entire front portion of the building was being used for commercial purposes and thus, for the dominant purpose of the building was commercial and the said building is not being termed to be a residential. The second judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Banswar Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Jaisawal : 2023 SCC Online All 2640 where the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the second provision to Section 21 (1) (a) and the court allowed the application filed by the landlord on the ground that they need set was entirely independent which was found to be genuine by this Court. In the light of the said, it is argued that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgement in view of the specific bar under Clause 21 (1) (a) and its proviso. Considering the fact that Clause (ii) of the Second proviso, bars to entertain the said application and in the present case, in the application itself it has been stated that the tented house is being used for residential purpose and the said portion was required by the landlord for developing the commercial complex, the bar under Clause (ii) of second proviso stood triggered on the date of filing the application itself. There has been no pleading that the tenanted portion of the building was partly commercial and partly residential, hence the judgement in the case of Rehanul Haq (supra) would be of no benefit to the petitioner. The issue with regard to the bar of Clause (ii) was neither raised nor considered in the case of Vijay Kumar Banswar (supra) as such both the judgements do not benefit the petitioner. Once the application itself is clear that the tenanted portion was used for residential purpose and the release was sought for commercial purpose in view of bar contained in Clause (ii) of proviso to Section 21(1) (a) of the Act of 1972, the petition could not have been entertained and was liable to be dismissed and was rightly rejected. No good ground is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty avail the remedies as are available under law. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Shukla ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench