RAM SHANKAR DIXIT Vs. VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The landlords are in appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a proceeding arising out of an application filed for release under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlords filed the application for release both on the ground that they require the premises, bonafide and also on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The Original Authority came to a finding that the landlords do not require the premises bonafide and, that the house is not in dilapidated condition, and, accordingly rejected the same. The matter being carried in appeal, the appellate authority reconsidered the entire materials and came to a positive finding that the building is in a dilapidated condition and granted release in favour of the appellants. The tenant carried the matter to the High Court in a writ petition. The High Court was of the opinion that the application for release is essentially one under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and in terms of the proviso thereof no notice having been given, the application for release was not sustainable. With this conclusion, the High Court set aside the appellate order and dismissing the application for release. Court set aside the appellate order and dismissing the application for release.

(3.) Mr. Satish Chandra, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submit that in fact notice had been given as early on 27.9.1986 and the High Court committed an error of record in coming to the conclusion that no notice has been given. The original notice that was given and was produced before the High Court has been produced in this Court before us. But, we need not delve into that question any further since we find that the tenant in the written statement filed did not take any positive stand on that score and that is why the Original Authority did not non-suit the landlords on the ground of lack of notice and the Appellate Authority also did not consider the same. From the impugned judgment of the High Court we find that the positive finding of the Appellate Authority that the building was in a dilapidated condition and as such the landlords are entitled to get it released under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, has not been reversed by the High Court. It is well settled that a finding of an inferior tribunal can be interfered by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction only when the High Court comes to the conclusion that the tribunal has entertained any inadmissible evidence or that it has ignored to consider any vital piece of evidence or that the finding is based on no evidence at all. From the judgment of the High Court we do not find that the High Court has at all discussed the finding of the Appellate Authority on the dilapidated condition of the building. The said finding not having been interfered with and in view our conclusion on the question of notice, as already stated, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and affirm the order of the release passed by the Appellate Authority to the extent that the building is in a dilapidated condition and, as such, required to be released. This appeal is accordingly allowed.