ZAFAR HUSSAIN Vs. FIFTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE HARDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present writ petition centres round a shop which was refused to be released in favour of petitioner in proceedings initiated by them under section 21 of Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the appeal filed against the order of the prescribed authority also met the same fate. Certified copies of the judgments passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate court have been filed as Annexures 1 and

(2.) RESPECTIVELY to the petition. 2". I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

(3.) THE prescribed authority after framing issues decided the case against the present petitioners and dismissed their application. It was held that the shop was not bona fide required by the petitioners. It was also held that the need of opposite parties were greater. THE proceedingwere held to be maintainable even in absence of Chandra Dutt as party to the proceedings and also that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the premises in question. THE prescribed authority also recorded a finding that the shop was in a dilapidated condition within the meaning of section 21 (1) (b) of the Act, but compliance with Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act was not made as it was found that the estimate of demolition and reconstruction did not include cost of demolition likely to be incurred. THE application was, therefore, rejected.