SHAMI AHMAD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 3.3.1997 whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 24.7.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Prescribed Authority was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act claiming that the building in question (shop) was in dilapidated condition and the same was required for demolition and new construction. The application filed by the respondent No. 3 was objected to and opposed by the petitioner contending that the building in question was not in dilapidated condition and that no case for release was at all made out. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases including the reports of the experts regarding the condition of the shop in dispute. The Prescribed Authority after going through the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion and recorded a clear and categorical finding that the building in question was in dilapidated condition. Having recorded the said finding, he has released the building in question under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act by judgment and order dated 3.3.1997. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also affirmed the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 24.7.2000. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in view of the conflicting and contradictory reports of the experts regarding the condition of the building, the Prescribed Authority should have inspected the said building for determining the real condition of the said building. It was also urged that the petitioner applied for issuance of commission but said application was illegally rejected by the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be quashed.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority perused the entire record including the reports of the experts regarding the condition of the building in question. The Prescribed Authority believed the version and evidence produced by the landlord and discarded that of the petitioner. Believing or disbelieving the evidence is a question of fact. Further, from the impugned order, it is apparent that the validity of the order dated 11.10.1996 whereby application for issuing commission was rejected, was not challenged before the Appellate Authority. The said order has, thus, become final. At this stage, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate the said point particularly when no affidavit of the Advocate who had argued the appeal before the Appellate Authority, has been filed in support of the statement of fact made in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner who is appearing before this Court, cannot have any personal knowledge with respect to the fact as to whether the ground regarding issuance of commission was raised and pressed before the Appellate Authority. The findings recorded by the authorities below on the questions involved in the case are all findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for some reasonable time to vacate the building in question may be granted to the petitioner. He is also willing to furnish an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that he will vacate the shop in dispute if some reasonable time is granted to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid fact, in my opinion, it will meet the ends of justice if I grant three months' time to the petitioner to vacate the building in question subject to the condition the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of fifteen days from today to the effect that on the expiry of the aforesaid time, he shall hand over vacant possession of the disputed shop to the landlord and shall also pay the rent for the building in question for the period he remains in occupation of the same, failing which this order shall stand automatically vacated and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.