MUMTAZ NABI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE PILIBHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of a suit for the eviction of the tenant by the landlord.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are these. THE respondent no. 2 Hamid Husain filed a suit against the petitioner Mumtaz Nabi for the latter's eviction and other connected reliefs by way of arrears of rent etc. were also claimed. THE suit was decreed by the trial court and a revision filed against the trial court's judgment also failed.

(3.) THE learned counsel's next contention is that in the instant case, it should be held that section 24 (2) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 stood attracted because the tenant seems to have allowed the reconstruction on the ground that the shop had become dilapidated and required reconstruction. THE learned counsel's point is that if the reconstruction is necessitated on account of the presence of the ingredients of section 21 (1) (b), then section 24 (2) should be held to be attracted even if there has been no proceedings under section 21(1)(b). I cannot accept this contention. In my view, the pre-condition for the applicability of Section 24 (2) is the existence of release order under section 21 (l)(b) and if such release order does not exist, then the special provision made under section 24 (2) will not come into play. I need not say anything about the aspect of the matter that it will always be a question of fact as to whether ingredients of section 21 (1) (b) were in existence or not when an agreement took place between the landlord and the tenant allowing an old structure to be reconstructed.