BASANT LAL JAISWAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's writ petition filed against the orders passed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 ordering eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question and accepting the case of opposite party No. 3 that the premises in question was in a dilapidated condition. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 3 landlady moved an application under Section 21(1)(b) of Act 13 of 1972 praying for eviction of the petitioner, who was a tenant in the said premises on the ground that the premises in question was in dilapidated condition and she had to demolish the said house and to reconstruct a building in its place. Her case is that for the above purpose she had got prepared an estimate of expenses likely to be incurred in demolition and reconstruction of the house as welt as had got a map sanctioned by the Nagar Palika. She also indicated that she has financial capacity to meet the expenses for demolition and reconstruction. So far the condition of the house is concerned, her case has been that the house in question is 100 years' old and there are cracks in the walls and roofs have fallen down and some had cracked through which water leaks. The tin sheets have also rotten. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner was that the house was not in dilapidated condition and that the landlady had got the house standing adjacent to the house in question demolished but no new construction was raised so far. Further his case was that tin sheets were no doubt old but the house was still inhabitable. Both the parties adduced -evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority held that the house was in a dilapidated condition, hence allowed the application of opposite party No. 3. The petitioner went up in appeal which too was dismissed by opposite party No. 1.

(3.) IN support of the contention that specific finding was required to be recorded to the effect that the building in question requires demolition and reconstruction, reliance was placed upon a case reported in, 1980 ARC 214. Pyare Lal v. IV Additional District Judge, Bijnor and others. In that case distinction was drawn between the provisions of Section 21(1)(b) of Act 13 of 1972 and Rule 17 of the Rules. Under clause (b) of Section 21(1) the provision is that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purposes of demolition and new construction, whereas under Rule 17(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, it is provided that the building requires demolition. A distinction was drawn between the two expressions used about the demolition of the building. It was observed that dilapidated condition of the building cannot be equated with "requires demolition". It has been observed that "requires" means something more than mere desire and implies an element of need. In reply to this submission, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon a case reported to 1984 (2) Lucknow Civil Decisions, 238 Binda Prasad v. III Additional District Judge, Faizabad and others. In this Division Bench's judgment which was given on reference, it has been observed in para 6 that the distinction which was sought to be drawn between the expression "requires demolition" and "a building is required for demolition and reconstruct on" cannot be sustained.