BATAULI Vs. VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Both these Writ Petitions are directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17-4-1976 releasing the disputed premises in favour of the landlord- respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 7-3-1983 dismissing the appeals against the said order. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in both these Writ Petitions are owners of the property in question. There were four tenants in the disputed premises. They filed separate applications under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against these four tenants on the allegations that the disputed premises was in a dilapidated conditions. Dewan Chand is tenant of shop Nos. 752 and 753 Kalwa is a tenant of shop No. 751, Haneef is a tenant of shop No. 755 and Smt. Bitauli is a tenant of house No. 754. It was stated that these shops and house were about 80 years' old and were in a dilapidated condition. They want to construct a double storied house. They have also got sanctioned a map to this effect by the Municipal Board and have financial capacity to construct the same.

(2.) THE tenants contested the applica tions and denied that the disputed shops and house were in a dilapidated condition. THE Prescribed Authority rejected all the applications by a common order dated 17-4-1976. THE landlord-respondents preferred four separate appeals against the order of the Prescribed Authority passed on those applications. THE Appellate Authority al lowed the appeals by a common order dated 7-3-1983 on the finding that the disputed shops and house were in a dilapidated condition and require demolition and reconstruction. THE landlords have finan cial capacity to reconstruct the shops and house. THE three tenants, namely, Smt. Bitauli, Kalwa and Mohammad Haneef have filed Writ Petition No. 3548 of 1983 and Dewan Chand Pansari has filed Writ Petition No. 3549 of 1983.

(3.) THE Commissioner had reported that except for the northern wall, the en tire portion in the occupation of Kalwa was made up of unbaked bricks. THE entire building was in a decaying condition. It is covered with mud and thatch except for patchwork in the building. Most of the building was a "kachcha" and was a decay ing structure. THE tenants filed objection to the report of the Commissioner. THE report of the Commissioner was affirmed subject to the evidence. It was for the tenant-petitioners to lead evidence to show that the report of the Advocate Com missioner was factually wrong. THE petitioners did not lead any evidence to establish that the report of the Commis sioner was incorrect. THEy contended that the Advocate Commissioner had in his report, stated that the persons, who were living in the house, may continue to live but if any structure is to be raised on the first floor, the entire building has to be demolished and on such report the entire building cannot be said to be in a dilapidated condition. THE report of the Advocate Commissioner was to be read as a whole. THE building consisted of residen tial portion and the shops. THEy have been found about 80 years old, some of the portion is of unbaked bricks.