Special summary eviction remedy depends on whether the landlord's occupied premises are a separately usable dwelling unit.

A special summary eviction remedy under Chapter IV-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is available only where the landlord lacks a separately usable residential unit in the same locality after vacating government accommodation. In deciding whether the occupied portion is a separate dwelling house, the relevant test is practical and functional: independent enjoyment, access, common facilities, and actual manner of occupation. On that approach, premises capable of separate and independent use do not qualify for the extraordinary procedure. The text also notes that applicability of Chapter IV-A to cantonment-area buildings may be supported by the relevant extension notification under the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the premises in the landlord's occupation formed a separate and independent dwelling house so as to disentitle him from invoking the summary remedy under sections 24-A to 24-C of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (ii) Whether the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the said Act applied to the building situated in the cantonment area when the proceedings were initiated and decided.

Issue (i): Whether the premises in the landlord's occupation formed a separate and independent dwelling house so as to disentitle him from invoking the summary remedy under sections 24-A to 24-C of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Analysis: The summary remedy under Chapter IV-A is intended for a landlord compelled to vacate government accommodation and left without residential accommodation in the same locality. The expression "residential building" and the concept of "dwelling house" must be applied pragmatically in light of the statutory purpose. If the portion already in the landlord's occupation can be separately enjoyed as a dwelling, the extraordinary procedure is not available. The physical arrangement, independent user, common facilities, access, and the practical manner of occupation are relevant in deciding whether the premises constitute one dwelling unit or more than one separately usable unit.

Conclusion: The premises in the landlord's occupation were capable of separate and independent enjoyment and therefore the landlord was not entitled to invoke the summary procedure under sections 24-A to 24-C. This issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applied to the building situated in the cantonment area when the proceedings were initiated and decided.

Analysis: The applicable notification under section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 extended the rent control law to cantonment areas, and the later legal position governed the revisional stage. The Court treated the subsequent legal development as sufficient to support applicability of Chapter IV-A and rejected the challenge on this ground.

Conclusion: The challenge to applicability of Chapter IV-A was rejected and was not accepted as a ground for interference; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant, but it did not alter the final result.

Final Conclusion: The landlord could not secure eviction through the special summary mechanism, and the High Court's order was left undisturbed. The appeal therefore failed, with the parties left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: For invoking a special summary eviction remedy based on the landlord's need after vacating government accommodation, the premises already in the landlord's occupation must not amount to a separately usable dwelling unit; where they can be separately enjoyed as a dwelling, the extraordinary procedure is unavailable.

---