RANJEET SINGH Vs. RAVI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant is the landlord-owner of the suit premises in occupation of respondent as the tenant. Proceedings for eviction of the respondent were initiated by the landlord on the grounds available under Cls. (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). The appellants case that the premises in occupation of the respondent were required bona fide by the appellant for his own business of fertilizers and agricultural implements. It was also alleged that the shop in occupation of the respondent was in a dilapidated condition. It was an old construction. Cracks had developed in the walls and the lintel. The corners of walls had given way. The local Municipality had served a notice on the appellant on 27-2-1985 to demolish the verandah and lintel. Hence, it was necessary to demolish the shop and reconstruct the same.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority, which is the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 15-2-1989 directed the appellants application to be dismissed. The appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed. Vide the judgment dated 17-7-1997, the learned Additional District Judge held the availability of both the grounds of eviction in favour of the appellant. The learned ADJ entered into re-appreciation of evidence and assigned reasons to show why the findings arrived at by the trial Court could not have been sustained. In the shop, in occupation of the respondent, he was running the business of fertilizers and agricultural implements and thus it could not be denied that the shop was suited for the business which the appellant proposed to have in the premises. There were two reports by two Local Commissioners, submitted on spot inspection, one of which was believed and such other evidence as available on record was appreciated in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner. The appellate Court was persuaded to form an opinion, and in our opinion, rightly, that the shop was an old construction which needed to be demolished as it was in a bad shape.