NARENDRA SHAH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALMORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against a concurrent order passed by the courts below rejecting an application of the Petitioner under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. These are the relevant facts:

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the finding of the courts below that the building is not in a delapidated condition is unsustainable. He submitted that in the order which was passed under Section 28(iv), a true copy of which has been annexed as annexure-I to the writ petition it was clearly mentioned that the building was in a bad shape and that it required major repairs. The courts below have not correctly appreciated the said order. I find no substance in this argument. The finding of the courts below is that after this order was passed the landlord undertook some repairs. The Prescribed Authority who made local inspection has observed that after the repairs had been effected at least the portion which is in occupation of the tenant, cannot be said to be in a delapidated condition. Whatever, might have been the state of the building at the time of the passing of the order under Section 28(4) the present position as found by the courts below seems to be that the building under the tenancy of Respondent No. 3 can no longer be recorded as being in a delapidated condition.

(3.) Learned Counsel next contended that the courts below have erred in law in taking the view that the state of the building other than the building under the tenancy of the Respondent No. 3 was not material. Learned Counsel contended that in an application under Clause (b) of Section 21(1) it was not only the state of the building under the tenancy which is relevant, but also the condition of the rest of the building of which the building under the tenancy may be a part. I do not agree. For the application of Clause (b) of Section 21(1) it is necessary, upon a plain reading of that provision, that the building under tenancy must itself be in a delapidated condition. The question of the building under tenancy being required for being demolished and reconstructed in consequence of the remaining part of the building, not under tenancy, arises only thereafter, where the application is, only under Clause (b). The finding that the building under tenancy is in a delapidated condition is in my judgment, essential in order to sustain an order under Clause (b) of Section 21(1). The finding of both the courts below is that at least the building which is under the tenancy of Respondent No. 2 is not in a delapidated condition. The courts below, were, therefore, right in rejecting the Petitioner s application as it was under Clause (b) of Section 21(1) only.