JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The property in question is a portion of house situate at Station Road Moradabad. It consists of two bed rooms, store room, kitchen, varandahs, latrine and bathroom situate on the ground floor in the northern portion of the house. The petitioner Shri Ram is the landlord. Ram Prakash is the tenant at the rate of Rs.80/- per mensum. It is alleged that the building in question was constructed in the year 1964-65 and, thereafter, Ram Prakash was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.80/- per mensum. A suit for ejectment was filed against the tenant in the year 1972. This suit was decreed by the Judge Small Causes Court on 12th November, 1975. Against the said decree, a revision was filed. The revisional court dismissed the revision on 13th November, 1979. The revisional order was challenged in writ no. 9528 of 1979. This petition was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 12th March, 1980 as by that time the Act became applicable to the building in question. 3. The petitioner landlord, thereafter, filed an application under section 21 of the Act on the ground of bonafide personal need. This application was filed in the year 1980. This release application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority by its order dated 3-11-1981. An appeal was filed under section 22 of the Act against the order dated 3-11-1981. The appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 6th September, 1986. 4. It is against the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority that the present petition has been filed in this court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the filing of the present petition the son of the tenant has built a house in the same city and, consequently, Explanation (i) to Section 21 of the Act applies to the facts of the case and the objections by the tenant to the release application, are, therefore, not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the filing of the present petition the son of the tenant has built a house in the same city and, consequently, Explanation (i) to Section 21 of the Act applies to the facts of the case and the objections by the tenant to the release application, are, therefore, not maintainable. As a consequence of this it is urged as such that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority holding that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide and genuine is vitiated in law as the same are based on the basis of the objections filed by the tenant as well as the evidence produced by him. 6. In paragraph 23 of the petition it has been alleged that the tenant Ram Prakash has constructed a new building in the name of his son Arvind Kumar over his plot of land situate on the west of the disputed accommodation. It has been further urged that as such the tenant can now easily shift with his family members in the newly constructed accommodation and does not need the accommodation in dispute. Paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit is the reply to paragraph 23 of the petition. In this paragraph of the counter- affidavit, it is not disputed that the house has been built by Arvind Kumar, the son of the tenant. It has been further stated that Arvind Kumar was married in the year 1983 and, he, thereafter, separated from the tenant. He got service in Punjab and Sind Bank in the year 1976 and is independent since then. The further allegations in this paragraph are that Arvind Kumar got a plan sanctioned by the Development Authority, Moradabad on 28th August, 1986. He was given a loan of Rs.1,09,000/- from the Bank. In paragraph 19 of the rejoinder-affidavit, the allegations made in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit have been denied. It has been stated that the entire family of the tenant is joint. Arvind Kumar, the son of the tenant is his family member and is normally residing with him. It is also denied that after the marriage of Arvind Kumar, he separated from the tenant and it has been further specifically averred that the house is complete and is in the residential occupation of the tenant and his family. Arvind Kumar, the son of the tenant is his family member and is normally residing with him. It is also denied that after the marriage of Arvind Kumar, he separated from the tenant and it has been further specifically averred that the house is complete and is in the residential occupation of the tenant and his family. The petitioner landlord filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit on 3rd November, 1988 in this court. In paragraph 19, it has been stated that the house has been constructed. Photographs of the same have been attached with the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. In paragraph 20, it has been stated that Arvind Kumar, the son of the tenant is his family member residing with him and has acquired a house in a vacant state. Respondent no. 3 filed a reply to this supplementary rejoinder affidavit. The fact that a house has been constructed by Arvind Kumar has not been denied, but it has been stated that the tenant, the father of Arvind Kumar has nothing to do with the house and he and his son are separate since long. 7. From the various averments mentioned in the petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it is established beyond doubt that Arvind Kumar, son of the tenant Ram Prakash has constructed a house after the filing of the present petition. This is, consequently a subsequent event which has a serious bearing on the release application. 8. Annexure RA-II to the rejoinder affidavit of the petition, is a written statement filed by the tenant to the release application of the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the written statement, it has been categorically stated by the tenant that the members of his family are his wife Smt. Shanti Rani, his son Arvind Kumar aged 24 years, Rajesh Kumar, aged 19 years, Vijay Kumar, aged 11 years and unmarried daughters Km. Nilam, Km. Manju and Km. Priti and that these members of the family are residing with him. It has been further stated that there are two married daughters, who only some times come to stay with him. This written statement was filed on 6th October, 1980. From this paragraph of the written statement, it is clear that it is the admitted case of the tenant that on 6th October, 1980, Arvind Kumar was normally residing with the tenant Ram Prakash. This written statement was filed on 6th October, 1980. From this paragraph of the written statement, it is clear that it is the admitted case of the tenant that on 6th October, 1980, Arvind Kumar was normally residing with the tenant Ram Prakash. I have already held above that it is established on record that Arvind Kumar has constructed a house during the pendency of this petition in this court. A question then arises as to whether in view of these undisputed facts, Explanation (i) to Section 21 of the Act applies or not. The tenant for the first time in this court has set up the case in the counter affidavit that Arvind Kumar has separated in 1983 after his marriage, and, thereafter, he constructed the house. The case now set up is directly against the admitted case that Arvind Kumar is residing with the tenant and is on the face of it not believable as it has not been stated that after 1983 when he married, where did Arvind Kumar shift. This fact has not been disclosed. It is, therefore, established beyond doubt that Arvind Kumar was normally residing with Ram Prakash, the tenant and that he constructed a house while normally residing with him. Explanation (i) to Section 21 of the Act reads as follows :- "Explanation-In the case of a residential building :- (i) where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependant on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained;" This Explanation clearly provides that where a tenant or a member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependant on him has built a residential building in the same city then no objection by the tenant against an application for release shall be entertained. The word 'family' has been defined in section 3 (g) of the Act. The word 'family' has been defined in section 3 (g) of the Act. It reads as follows – "3 (g)-"family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her- (i) spouse, (ii) male lineal descendants, (iii) such parents, grand parents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her, and such includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building ; " 9. Male lineal descendant comes within the definition of the family and as such, the son is member of the family of the tenant. 10. Explanation (i) would apply in cases where a member of his family who has built a residential building is either normally residing with the tenant or is wholly dependant on him. The word 'or' is significant. Explanation (i) would be applicable to the case where a member of the family of the tenant has been normally residing with him or alternatively where a member of the family of the tenant is wholly dependant on him. As I have already held above that Arvind Kumar is the son of the tenant, consequently he is a member of his family and since he has been normally residing with him and has built a residential building, therefore Explanation (i) clearly applies. The contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner is substantiated. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that Arvind Kumar is not dependant on the tenant and as such, if he has built a house, Explanation (i) would not apply. This question, in my opinion, does not arise in the present petition as I have already taken the view that Arvind Kumar has been normally residing with his father who is the tenant of the premises. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of Full Bench of this Court in Mangi Lal v. Additional District Judge, 1980 AWC 33 . In this Full Bench decision, it has been held that Explanation (i) is prospective and not retrospective. In my opinion, this does not help the argument raised on behalf of the respondent as admittedly the tenant himself stated in the written statement to the release application that on 6th October, 1980, Arvind Kumar was residing with him. In this Full Bench decision, it has been held that Explanation (i) is prospective and not retrospective. In my opinion, this does not help the argument raised on behalf of the respondent as admittedly the tenant himself stated in the written statement to the release application that on 6th October, 1980, Arvind Kumar was residing with him. Since after filing of the present petition the tenant has built a house in the name of his son Arvind Kumar and in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit it has been categorically stated which has not been denied that the ground floor portion of the house which has been newly constructed has been let out to M/s. Vikas Enterprises on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-, it would have been a fit case to allow the release application in the interest of justice, but since the finding in regard to the bonafide need is against the petitioner and is based on the evidence filed on behalf of the respondent tenant also, it will be appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Appellate Authority for afresh decision on the question of bonafide need. 13. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed. 14. In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 3rd November, 1981 and that of the Appellate Authority dated 6th September, 1986 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision afresh on the question of bonafide need of the petitioner landlord after excluding the objections filed by the tenant against the release application as also the evidence filed on his behalf. The Appellate Authority shall finally dispose of the appeal within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it as it is pending decision for a very long time. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.