SHIBBOO Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Prescribed Authority, Hapur, had rejected the application of the landlord under Section 21 of the Act for the release of the building. On appeal the 1st Additional District Judge had allowed the application of the landlord and ordered ejectment of the tenant under Section 21 of the Act.

(2.) THE dispute property belongs to a temple with deities. An application had been moved through the Manager under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner Shibboo was the tenant of a Kotha along with open land. The applicant landlord claimed that the building in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and was not fit for residence and the landlord wanted to demolish it and raise new construction to augment the income of the temple. It was further claimed that the tenant had alternative accommodation and the requirement was for public good and the applicant had means to re-construct it. The application was contested by the tenant. He also disputed the rate of rent and the right of the Manager to move the application. There was a denial that the building was dilapidated and that it needed re-construction. The Prescribed Authority held that the landlord had failed to satisfy the conditions under Rule 17 and there was no justification for allowing the application of the landlord. The landlord went up in appeal and the respondent No. 1 while allowing the appeal and the application held that the landlord had been able to make out a case. The application made by the landlord through the Manager Bhagwati Prasad was maintainable. The building was in a dilapidated condition and it required fresh construction. The landlord had sufficient means for reconstruction and the requirement of Rule 17 and been complied with. There was surplus appurtenant land and there was no reason why the tenant should be allowed to continue in possession of such appurtenant land. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and that order of ejectment of the tenant under Section 21 of the Act was passed.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority has examined in great detail the question also to whether the building under tenancy was in a dilapidated condition. Respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the building was in a dilapidated condition. This finding was challenged on the ground that the building was not dilapidated; that the landlord did not have the financial capacity for the demolition and new construction and the financial capability of the Manager was of no consequence and had to be ignored. The first question therefore to be considered is whether the finding on the question of dilapidated condition of the building under tenancy is vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record.