KAMLA DEVI Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.04.2004 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge/Prescribed Authority, Ghaziabad.

(2.) The petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi (landlady) filed application under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (hereinafter referred as "Act No. 13 of 1972") alleging that she is the owner of the shop situated on the ground floor of building No. 349 at Jawaharganj, Meerut Road, Mukteshwar, District Ghaziabad. It is under the tenancy of respondent No. 3, Shakijan son of Ashraf Khan. The said shop was purchased by petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 10.10.1991 from erstwhile owner Smt. Dropadi Devi wife of Sri Jai Prakash Garg. Respondent No. 3 was tenant from the time of Smt. Dropadi Devi and after purchase of shop in question, became her (petitioner's) tenant. The shop is in dilapidated condition and likely to fall at any point of time in respect whereof a notice was issued by Nagar Palika, Garhmukteswar to petitioner alleging that the shop is in dangerous state and may fall at any point of time. She prayed that the shop should be required to be vacated so as to be demolished and reconstructed.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 contested this application by filing written statement (copy whereof has been filed as annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit). He said that the shop in question is in his tenancy for the last 40 years. It is in very sound state and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be in dilapidated condition, having connected walls with other houses which are two or three storey buildings and the allegation that it is in dilapidated condition, is false and incorrect. He further said that the petitioner landlady filed suit No. 3 of 1993 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Ghaziabad for ejectment and recovery of rent which is still pending. This shows that petitioner somehow or the other wants to evict him from the shop in question. He further pleaded that the petitioner landlady had not acted and observed her authority as landlady having committed default in maintenance of the shop in question. The condition of the shop has deteriorated on account of deliberate negligent act on the part of landlady and for that reason, she cannot take advantage of her own wrong.