G.P Mathur, J.:— The tenant-petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the proceedings of P.A Case No. 25 of 1983, Hari Bhagwan v. Mmni Lal pending before the Prescribed Authority, Agra.

2. The petitioner is in occupation of a portion of a residential house No. 9/201, Moti Katra, Agra of which Hari Bhagwan Ban sal is the owner-landlord. A release application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the landlord on July 6, 1983, for release of the premises in occupation of the petitioner on the ground that the same were bona fide required for his personal use. This application was registered as P.A Case No. 25 of 1983 and is pending before the Prescribed Authority, Agra. Subsequently on September 9, 1991, the landlord filed a release application under Section 16(1)(b) read with Section 12 of the Act against the petitioner Munni Lal before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer for release of the premises in his favour on the ground that the petitioner had closed his business and had removed all his goods from the premises and the same were lying vacant. It was also asserted that the petitioner had acquired another residential building No. 9/885, Gali Koliha in vacant State. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the allegations made by the landlord in the release application filed by him under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act have ceased to be maintainable and both the proceedings cannot simultaneously go on. The petitioner has thus sought quashing of the proceedings of the case under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, before the Prescribed Authority.

3. Leases of immovable property are governed by Chapter V of Transfer of Property Act and Section 106 of the said Act (As amended in U.P) provides that in absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by six months notice and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by one month's notice. After determination of lease, a lessor is entitled to recover possession of the property from the lessee. However, with regard to those buildings to which the Act is applicable, a restriction is imposed upon the right of the landlord to recover possession of the building from the tenant who is in occupation thereof. If a person is in occupation of a building which is covered by the provisions of the Act the landlord cannot evict him even after determination of his tenancy at his sweet will. The Act has been enacted in the interest of the general public as there is extreme shortage of accommodations in the cities which will be evident from its preamble which reads as follows:

“The Act to provide in the interest of the general public for the regulation of letting and rent of, and the eviction of tenants, certain classes of buildings situated in urban areas, and for matters connected therewith.”

4. There are three provisions in the Act under which a landlord can recover possession of his building which is in occupation of a tenant. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 provides that a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (g). This suit has to be instituted in the Court of judge, Small Causes. Section 21 of the Act provides that the Prescribed Authority may on an application of the landlord order eviction of a tenant from a building under his tenancy on the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) thereof. Clause (a) provides that the building will be released on the bona fide requirement of the landlord and clause (b) provides that the building will be released if it is in dilapidated condition and is required for purpose of demolition and new construction. An application under Section 21 of Act has to be moved before the Prescribed Authority. Section 16(1)(b) provides that the District Magistrate may release the whole or any part of a building in favour of the landlord. However, this power can be exercised by the District Magistrate only with regard to those buildings which are either vacant or are deemed to be vacant under Section 12(4) of the Act. The Scheme of the Act, therefore, contemplates three different kind of proceedings which may be taken by the landlord for recovery of possession of the building which is covered by the provisions of the Act and the proceedings have to be taken before three different authorities. There is no inter se conflict between the nature of the proceedings which may be initiated under the aforesaid provisions of the Act.

5. Section 20 of the Act imposes a bar upon the right of a landlord to institute a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building except on one or more of the grounds enumerated in sub-Section (2) thereof. Unless the tenant commits one or more of the offending acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) the suit cannot be instituted. Therefore the landlord will get a right to institute a suit only if a tenant does one of the offending acts. However, if the landlord bona fide requires the building for occupation of himself or any member of his family or for any person for whose benefit it is held by him or if the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purpose of demolition and new construction the Act gives a right to him to file an application for release of the premises under Section 21 of the Act. In these circumstances the landlord has to satisfy the authority that his need is bona fide and while ordering eviction of the tenant from the building the authority has also to take into consideration, except in the cases covered by the Explanation, the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application. While considering an application covered by clause (b) the landlord has to satisfy the authority that the building is in dilapidated condition and is required for demolition and new construction. As noticed earlier an application under Section 16(1)(b) is maintainable only if the building is actually vacant which means that there is no tenant in occupation thereof or is deemed to be vacant under Section 12(4) of the Act. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 12 create a legal fiction and a building is deemed to be vacant if the conditions enumerated therein are satisfied. If a tenant removes his effects or allows it to be occupied by a person who is not a member of his family or in case of a residential building he as well as members of his family take up residence else-where the building is deemed to be vacant. Again if in the case of a residential building a tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state a residential building in the same city the building under his tenancy is deemed to be vacant except when it is covered by the proviso to sub-section (3) of the Act. A non-residential building is deemed to be vacant when a tenant, carrying on business therein, admits a person, who is not a member of his family, as a partner. These provisions show that the building would be deemed to be vacant only if he does one of the offending acts enumerated in sub-section (1) to (3) thereof.

6. A close scrutiny of the provisions of the Act would show that the causes of action for initiating proceedings under Section 16(1)(b) or under Section 21(1) or for instituting a suit for eviction of a tenant are entirely different. In proceedings under Section 21(1) the tenant asserts that he is in occupation of the building and the landlord also admits the said fact. In proceedings under Section 16(1)(b) though the tenant says that he is continuing in occupation of the building and is in lawful occupation thereof the landlord asserts that on account of one of the acts enumerated in sub-sections (1), (2) or (3) of Section 12 of the Act, done by the tenant he shall be deemed to have vacated the building within the meaning of sub-section (4) thereof. Thus in such a proceeding the landlord seeks to rely upon the legal fiction created by sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, there can be no conflict in the facts which have to be alleged and proved by a landlord for getting an order in his favour while initiating proceedings under Section 16(1)(b) for under Section 21(1) of the Act.

7. It may also be mentioned here that while proceedings for release under Section 21(1) of the Act can be initiated only by the landlord the proceedings under Section 16 can be initiated by any person who is an aspirant of the building being allotted to him or the District Magistrate himself. If a tenant does anyone of the offending acts enumerated in sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 12 of the Act the building shall be deemed in law to be vacant. In such a situation any person can apply for the building being allotted to him or the District Magistrate himself gets jurisdiction to allot the same to any person. The deemed vacancy of a building occurs automatically on the happening of certain events without any action being initiated by the landlord. Even if a landlord gives consent to such a tenant to continue in occupation of his building it will make no difference and the deemed vacancy would occur. This situation arises by operation of law on account of certain act done by the tenant or a member of his family and not on account of any steps taken by the landlord. Even if the landlord wants to save such a tenant he cannot do so and the law would take its own course, namely, that the building would be deemed to be vacant. The District Magistrate will then get the jurisdiction to either release the building to the landlord or to allot the same to any other person.

8. In the Act also there is no prohibition to the effect that if a landlord has filed an application under Section 21(1) of Act for the release of the building before the Prescribed Authority he cannot file an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act before the District Magistrate. In Syed Majhar Mustafa Jafri v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer,1 I have held that if a landlord has filed a suit for eviction of a tenant on anyone of the grounds enumerated in Section 50 of the Act the landlord can also participate in an inquiry held for the purpose of determing whether the building should be deemed to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. In view of the discussion made above I am of opinion that there is no legal impediment in the way of a landlord in initiating or continuing simultaneous proceedings under Section 21 or under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act againtst a tenant who is in occupation of his building.

9. The writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed summarily.

10. Petition dismissed.