RAFIQ AHMAD Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A set of tenants complains that the landlord is under contempt as he has breached the undertaking that certain premises would be made available but this has not been done. The undertaking to which they refer is on record by an affidavit in writ petition No. 5221 of 1985 : Rafiq Ahmad and others v. IInd Addl. District Judge and others.

(2.) IF the controversies in the present matter are to be appreciated, a brief introduction to the litigation in question is necessary. The matter which was in issue between the landlord and tenants was under Section 24 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972).

(3.) SMT . Urmila Gupta had moved an application before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(b) read with Section 24 of the Act. The District Judge permitted the release of the accommodation, in effect, granting permission to the landlord to demolish the old structure and construct a new building on its site. The tenants resisted this permission and filed writ petition No. 5221 of 1985 : Rafiq Ahmad and others v. IInd Additional District Judge and others, in effect, seeking a relief that permission granted by the District Judge permitting the landlord to put up a new building at the site of the old once be denied implying thereby that they would continue as tenants in the old building. On record of the writ petition the landlord gave an assurance and faith to the Court by an affidavit that his intention to put a new building at the site of the old one was bonafide and there need be no apprehension in the minds of the tenants that the intention of the landlord was a ruse to keep them out. The affidavit, in effect, submitted that upon the new building being constructed it would be ensured that the tenants would have on the ground floor the same floor area which they occupied. Thus the Court did not feel inclined that it ought to invoke a writ of certiorari to certify the order of the District Judge granting permission to landlord to demolish the old structure and put up a new one instead and further there was an undertaking on a affidavit, assuring the tenants' return. It was premature at that stage to comment on anything that there may be a disinclination in the mind of the landlord to not make the accommodation available to the tenants. The logic of this was that the old building had yet to go and the new one had yet to come up and the occasion to test the undertaking would arrive when the new building was constructed.