JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—A portion of House No. 18/15 Hastings Road, Tandon Quarters, Allahabad is involved in the dispute. 2. The respondent/landlords (hereinafter referred to as the landlords) applied for release of the above portion under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short ‘Act’). The said release application after contest by the tenant has been allowed by the Courts below. 3. Aggrieved by release of the portion in question, the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the tenant has argued only one point that the residential portion cannot be released for commercial purposes. 5. Sri Ravikant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava who appears for the landlords has submitted that no such specific argument was raised by the tenant in the Courts below. The tenanted portion is residential-cum-commercial and, as such, the bar contemplated by proviso to Section 21 would not apply. The objections of the tenant in opposition to the release application are not required to be considered as he has acquired an alternative accommodation in the city itself. 6. The release application filed by the landlords is enclosed with the petition in the form of Annexure 5. It at its foot describes the tenanted portion as under: Þfooj.k Hkou futkbZ ,d nqdku] fjgk;'kh rhu dejs vkaxu] jlksbZ ?kj] 'kkSpky;] Lukux`g] Mªkbax :e gS tks Hkou la0 18@15 gsfLVax jksMA 1@5 U;k; ekxZA VaMu DokVlZ] bykgkckn] ij fLFkr gS] ftldh ekufp= layXu gS rFkk pkSgn~nh fuEu gS%&ß 7. The description of the tenanted portion as given by the landlords themselves in the release application is one shop, three residential rooms with Courtyard, kitchen, toilet, bathroom, drawing room forming part of house No. 18/15 Hastings Road, Tandon Quarters, Allahabad. The aforesaid description clearly demonstrates that apart from one shop the entire other portion under tenancy is residential in nature. 8. The release application in paragraph 5 states that previously the father of the tenant late Kedar Nath Gupta was the tenant whereupon on his death the petitioner tenant is using the house as a shop and for residential purposes. The averments made in this paragraph also indicates that the landlords accept that the tenant is using the tenanted portion in part as a shop and for residential purposes. The averments made in this paragraph also indicates that the landlords accept that the tenant is using the tenanted portion in part as a shop and for residential purposes. It by necessary implication means that a one room portion which has been described as shop is being used as a shop and the remaining three room portion with a Courtyard, a kitchen, a toilet, a bathroom and a drawing room is being used for residential purposes. In other words, except for one room portion which is being used as a shop and the remaining portion is in use for residential purposes. 9. The pleadings of the release application further reveal that the case of the landlords is that they have no other place to do any business except for the portion in dispute. They are living with their family with Smt. Urmila Tandon in a house 33 Lookerganj, Allahabad. The landlord No. 1 is doing computer business and his establishment is registered with the Labour Department. He requires the premises in dispute for his bona fide need to expand/start his computer business which will require a Computer Operator, an Accountant, three Salesman and an Assistant. 10. The need as established by the landlords in the release application for the tenanted portion is only for the business purposes of one of them which is clearly indicative on the complete reading of the release application, specially paragraph 20 which reads as under: 20- ;g fd vkosnd la0 1 dks viuk O;olk;h dkjksckj djus ds fy, iz'uxr Hkou la0 18@15 gsfLVax jksMA 1@5 U;k; ekxZA VaMu DokVlZ] bykgkckn] ftlesa foi{kh fdjk;snkj ds :i esa vkckn gS] dh mfpr o ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS ftlesa og O;kikj dks leqfpr :i ls pyk ldrk gSAß 11. A complete reading of the release application as filed by the landlords makes two things very clear. First the release has been sought of a shop and a three room residential portion with a drawing room, Courtyard, kitchen, toilet and bathroom. Second the need for the aforesaid porition is for commercial purposes. 12. Section 21 of the Act which provides for release of the building under occupation of tenant on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord by its third proviso lays down that no application for release shall be entertained in case of any residential building for occupation for business purposes. 12. Section 21 of the Act which provides for release of the building under occupation of tenant on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord by its third proviso lays down that no application for release shall be entertained in case of any residential building for occupation for business purposes. The relevant clause of the third proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is quoted below: “Provided also that no application under clase (a) shall be entertained - (i) ..... (ii) in the case of any residential building, for occupation for business purposes; (iii) ........” 13. The aforesaid provision is of a mandatory nature and provides that a residential building cannot be released for business purposes. 14. The question whether a residential building can be released for commercial purposes is a pure question of law and a duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that a residential portion is not released for business purpose. 15. The Courts below in allowing the release application have not dealt with and considered the above aspect of the matter which goes to the root of the release application and its maintainability. 16. The written argument filed on behalf of the tenant before the appellate Court below reveals that emphasis was laid upon the above aspect of the matter and a contention was raised that a residential building cannot be released for commercial purposes in respect of which Husaini Dhobi v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Lucknow and another, 1986(2) ARC 251, was cited. However, despite the above the lower appellate Court failed to consider the above argument and record any finding thereon. Both the Courts below allowed the release application holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide but without going into the question of releasing a residential portion for the purposes of business. 17. In Husaini Dhobi (supra) it has been held that the landlord is permitted to use the residential portion for business purpose and the landlord cannot seek release of residential premises for commercial purpose in view of the bar contained in proviso third (ii) to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 18. No contrary view was placed before me. 19. The Courts below in holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide have recorded a finding that the tenant has acquired a residential house at Bhagwan Ram Mandir Marg/Old Stretchy Road, Allahabad. 18. No contrary view was placed before me. 19. The Courts below in holding the need of the landlord to be bona fide have recorded a finding that the tenant has acquired a residential house at Bhagwan Ram Mandir Marg/Old Stretchy Road, Allahabad. In view of the said finding it has been argued that the tenant cannot object to the release application. 20. Explanation (i) to the fourth proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act stipulates that where the tenant or any member of his family 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. In other words, it provides that if a tenant of a residential premises has acquired another residential premises in vacant state he would not be entitle to raise any objection against the release application. 21. The aforesaid provision only debars the tenant from raising objection against the release application but it does not debars the Court from considering the maintainability of the release application on the pleadings made in the release application itself. Thus, notwithstanding any objection to the release application by the tenant the release application on the face of it was not maintainable in so far as it seeks the release of a residential portion for business purposes. 22. In the above circumstances, as the landlords sought release of three rooms residential porition with a drawing room, Courtyard, kitchen, toilet and bathroom for business purposes, the release application to that effect was barred by clause (ii) to third proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act. 23. Accordingly, the judgments and orders dated 30.5.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Allahabad and dated 10.1.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad in so far as they direct for release of the residential portion of the House No. 18/15 Hastings Road, Tandon Quarters, Allahabad for commercial purposes is quashed and the release of the shop alone which forms part of the tenanted portion is maintained. The judgment and orders of the Courts below stand modified to the extent indicated above. 24. The writ petition is partly allowed as above with no orders as to costs. ——————