KUNWAR RANI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, by means of present writ petition, seeks to issue a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.06.2004, passed by learned Prescribed Authority. The petitioner also seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to handover the possession of a portion of accommodation in question forthwith to the petitioner after reconstructing the same within a specified period. It is also prayed that an exemplary cost may be imposed on respondent no. 2 to compensate the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that an application was preferred by respondent no. 2 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972) for releasing the accommodation, which was under the tenancy of the petitioner, on the ground that the accommodation in question was in critical condition and required to be renovated. It was a specific averment in the application that the accommodation will be handed over to the petitioner after renovation of the property. As per Section 24 of the U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972, an objection was filed by the petitioner, and the grounds taken up by respondent no. 2 in the release application were specifically denied. It was the specific averment of the writ petitioner that the property was not in a critical condition, which required renovation. The same was done by respondent no. 2 with the intention of evicting the petitioner from the premises in question. Learned Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of respondent no. 2, vide judgment dated 02.03.1994. Thereafter, petitioner preferred rent control appeal no. 94 of 1998 before learned Addl. District Judge, who dismissed the appeal, vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2001, subject to the condition that the landlord shall provide a portion of the accommodation for the purposes of entry as contemplated under Section 24 of the U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972. A specific direction was given to the landlord (respondent no. 2 herein) that after the demolition, the reconstruction should be done preferably within six months. An application was thereafter preferred by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority under Section 22(f) of the U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 read with Section 151 of C.P.C stating therein that as per the judgment of learned Addl. District Judge, the landlord has not constructed the house deliberately. Though the accommodation was handed over to him on 28.04.2001, and thereafter, he demolished the accommodation, but he is not constructing the accommodation deliberately. The landlord filed an objection on 07.07.2002, stating therein that he applied for the layout plan before MDDA, but the same has not been sanctioned and, therefore, the construction could not be started. The petitioner has a right to get the portion of the house in question on the basis of undertaking given by the landlord. There is great hardship to the petitioner, hence, a direction be issued to respondent no. 2 to handover the possession of a portion of the accommodation in question forthwith to the petitioner after reconstructing the same within a specified period.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on the judgment dated 16.03.2001 of learned Addl. District Judge, Dehradun, rendered in rent control appeal, wherein it was directed that the landlord shall provide the option of re -entry to the tenant as contemplated by Section 24 of the U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972. On getting possession, the property shall be put for demolition and reconstruction shall preferably be made within six months.