MADAN MOHAN KAUSHIK Vs. SMT. MADHU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner firstly contended that the sanctioned map filed along with the counter affidavit is in the name of Amit Kumar HUF though the owner of property in dispute is Smt. Madhu Gupta. However, it is not disputed that Smt. Madhu Gupta is wife of Sri Amit Kumar and it is also not disputed that sanctioned map which has been placed before this Court along with counter affidavit relates to same accommodation.

(2.) Secondly it is contended that during the period construction will be going on, no alternative accommodation is provided by landlord but Sri Jain could not show any provision under which a landlord is under a statutory obligation to provide an alternative accommodation during the period a dilapidated building is reconstructed. The tenant is given right of re-entry in exercise of power under Sec. 24 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") which can be claimed after reconstruction. Besides it no other right is shown to be possessed by the tenant in the cases like the present one.

(3.) Lastly it is contended that the area of accommodation which has been mentioned in the appellate judgement dated 19.05.2011 to which the petitioner shall be entitled for re-entry is only 376 sq. ft. covered area on the first floor and 57 sq. ft. tin sheded area, though, according to Sri Jain, the area in possession of tenant is about 900 sq. ft. However, he could not dispute that on this aspect there was no pleading and no issue has been raised before the court below. If there is any error or mistake in the judgment of Appellate Court, the remedy lies to approach the Appellate Court by moving appropriate application but this issue for the first time cannot be raised in a writ petition. No other point has been argued.