SURENDRA KUMAR SACHDEVA Vs. IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The dispute relates to four shops. Respondent No. 2 who is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute, is a doctor. The petitioners are tenants. It appears that Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thus the application of the landlord is both for personal need as also on the ground that the accommodation in question is in dilapidated condition as was required for the purposes of demolition and new construction. The Prescribed Authority after discussing the entire material on record dismissed the application of the landlord. Thereafter the landlord preferred an appeal. The appeal is registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 12 of 1989. The above appeal of the landlord has been allowed by the Third Additional District Judge, Nainital, Camp at Haldwani by the impugned judgment dated 19 -12 -1989.

(2.) THE case of the landlord in substance is that the four shops in possession of the tenants are very old and are in dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. The purpose is to construct Nursing Home. However, the case has been developed at the appellate stage that the landlord also wanted to construct some new shops which he proposes to give to the tenants. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court the tenants have filed the present writ petition.