PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner-landlord filed an application for release under Section 21(1) (a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 25.9.1994 with the allegation that he had purchased the disputed shop in which the petitioner was a tenant at a Rs. 36 per month vide registered sale deed dated 29.5.1981 and the same is required for his own occupation after demolition and reconstruction. It was also pleaded that the disputed shop was in a dilapidated condition which otherwise also required demolition.

(3.) After the parties had' led evidence, the Prescribed Authority rejected the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that six months' notice was not given in accordance to the proviso 1st to the section before filing the release application. However, it recorded categorical finding that the premises were in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. The respondent-tenant preferred Rent Appeal No. 1 of 1993 and the appeal has been allowed holding that neither there was any averment to show that the shop was in such a condition that it could not be repaired nor there was any such evidence to show that it required demolition.