JAI BHAGWAN Vs. IST ADDL DISTT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated November 29, 1985, whereby the appeal was allowed and the release application filed by the petitioners was rejected.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed application for release of the disputed accommodation under Sec tions 21 (1 ) (a) and 2. 1 (l) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground that the disputed accommodation is in a dilapidated condi tion and after its demolition and re-con struction he requires the same for residential purpose. THE application was contested by the tenant-respondent. THE Prescribed Authority found the need of the petitioner bona fide and genuine. It was further found that the building was in dilapidated condi tion and required demolition and reconstruction. THE tenant- respondents filed appeal against the said order. THE Ap pellate Authority has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority. THE application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the im pugned order dated November 29,1985.

(3.) THE law does not require that an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act cannot be allowed unless the tenant has some alternative accommodation. In Bega Begum and others v. Abdul Ahad Khan and others, it has been held that in every case when an application is allowed, the tenant has to be evicted but the mere fact that the tenant has no alternative accom modation shall not be ground to reject the application. THE Appellate Authority, without considering this aspect, has rejected the application simply on the grounds that the tenants would suffer greater hardship in case they are evicted. Secondly, the Ap pellate Authority should have examined the entire evidence on record to find out as to whether the building in question is in a dilapidated condition.