Appeal No 1043 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9 3 1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc Petn
No 693874
KP Kapur and AL Trehan for the appellant
SC Agrawal and MMD Srivastava for respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI J
This appeal by special leave is by the tenant to be described hereinafter as the appellant and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in a writ petition at his 171 instance which was dismissed
The District Judge Dehradun who had earlier dismissed his appeal has been impleaded as respondent No 1
The facts may briefly be stated The appellant is admittedly the tenant under the 2nd respondent to be described herinafter as the respondent in respect of two rooms of House No 11 Rajput Road Dehradun
This house has four rooms of which only two rooms are in occupation of the appellant
The other two rooms are in occupation of the respondent whose two sons stay there the eider one living with his wife
The respondent is an old lady with an ailing husband and wants to have vacant posses sion of the two rooms so that the entire family can reside at the same place
With that end in view on June 22 1972 the respondent filed an application under section 3 of the United Provinces Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 UP Act No III of 1947 for permission to bring a suit against the appellant for his eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement
During the pendency of this application before the Rent Control and Eviction Offi cer the UP Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972 UP Act No 13 of 1972 hereinaf ter to be referred to as the Act came into force with effect from July 15 1972 repealing the earlier Act of 1947 with certain savings as mentioned in section 43 of the Act
As a consequence of enforcement of the Act the proceedings under section 3 that were pending under the earlier Act converted into one under section 21 of the new Act UP Act No 13 of 1972
The prescribed authority The Additional District Magistrate rejected the application
The respond ent then preferred an appeal to the District Judge Dehra dun who allowed the same on the ground of bona fide re quirement relying on the sole ground that Explanation iv to section 211 of the Act was applicable to the facts of the case
The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the District Judge preferred a writ application before the High Court which as stated earlier was disallowed
Before we deal with the question of law raised in this appeal we may note the findings of fact reached by the District Judge
The District Judge found as follows  It will appear that the house in question is a residential building
It has been built for residential purposes and is being primarily used therefor
Simply because the tenant is also carrying on the business of tailoring in one of the rooms will not convert it into non residential building
The landlady is admittedly occupying the remaining portion thereof
 Even the prescribed authority at the first instance had observed as follows in his order  I have inspected the demised premises situated at 11 Rajpur Road Dehradun in the presence of both the parties
On inspection it was found that disputed house is one building fin which one portion is in the possession of the respondent tenant
The one portion of the building is in the occupation of the applicant for residential purposes
The respondent has two small rooms and a very small courtyard
Out of those two rooms each one is about 8 wide and 8 long there is a tailoring shop of the respondent
The other room is being used for residential purposes
The applicant has two rooms of the same size and one additional courtyard
 The question that arises for consideration is whether Explanation iv of clause 1 of section 21 of the Act has been correctly held to be applicable by the District Judge and the High Court to the facts as found
Explanation iv of section 21 1 reads as follows  In the case of a residential building iv the fact that the building under tenancy is a part of a building the remaining part whereof is in the occupation of the landlord for residential purposes shah be conclusive to prove that the building is bona fide required by the landlord
 It is submitted by the appellant that the building under tenancy is not a residential building and therefore the condition precedent to the application of Explanation iv is absent in this case
According to counsel since the tenant is admittedly running a tailoring shop in one of the two rooms under his occupation the house ceases to be a residential building
We are unable to accept this submission
The appellant has only two small rooms in which he resides with his wife two young sons and one daughter and although he may have a tailoring shop in one of his rooms it is not unlikely that that very room is utilised as bed room for one or two mem bers of his family at night
The fact that he runs a tai loring shop in one of the rooms is not sufficient to convert what otherwise to all intents and purposes is a residential building into a non residential building
The tests for application of Explanation iv are as follows  1 the building should be a residential building and 2 the landlord must be in occupation of apart of the building for residential purposes the other part being in the occupation of the tenant
If the above two tests are fulfilled in a case it will furnish under the law a conclusive proof that the building is bona fide required by the Landlord
There is no need for the landlord to establish any other requirement
Expla nation iv provides a conclusive and irrebuttable presump tion of bona fide requirement once the conditions mentioned therein are established
The two tests are fulfilled in this case on the findings of fact as noted above
We are of opinion that the District 173 Judge was right in his finding that Explanation iv of section 21 1 was applicable which view was also later upheld by the High Court
The High Court was therefore right in dismissing the writ application
We may observe that we are not required to consider in this appeal the effect of the Amendment Act 28 of 1976 which came into force on July 5 1976 whereby Explanation iv was omitted nor has any argument been advanced in that connection
There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed
We will however make no order as to costs
The appellant may continue in possession of the suit premises till 30th April 1977
He shall hand over vacant and peaceful posses sion thereof on May 1 1977 to the respondent
MR Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The appellant was a tenant occupying two rooms in the residential house of respondent No 2
He used one room for living purposes and the other as a tailoring shop
The landlady brought a suit for his eviction on the ground of personal requirement
but the same was dismissed by the District Magistrate
An appeal to the District Judge Dehra dun was allowed and Explanation iv to section 211 of the UP Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Evic tion Act 1972 was held applicable
The view was upheld by the High Court in petition filed by the appellant who con tended that due to his shop the house under tenancy had ceased to be a residential building and that Explanation iv was not applicable
The High Court rejected the peti tion
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD Explanation iv provides a conclusive and irre buttable presumption of bona fide requirement once the conditions mentioned therein are established
The tests for application of Explanation iv are as follows 1 The building should be a residential building and 2 The landlord must be in occupation of a part of the building for residential purposes the other part being in the occupation of the tenant
If the above two tests are fulfilled in a case there is no need for the landlord to establish any other requirement
172F H 2 The fact that a tailoring shop is run in one of the rooms is not sufficient to convert what otherwise to all intents and purposes is a residential building into a non residential building
172E F