JALIL AHMAD Vs. IST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition arising from proceedings for release under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. p. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) THE case of opposite parties 3 and 4 was that the premises in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. In support of the plea that the property was in a dilapidated condition the opposite parties apart from filing affidavit, also placed on record the report of Sri Nairn Khan, Civil Engineer. A report was also obtained from an Advocate Commissioner. THE two authorities below apart from relying on these two reports have also relied upon the petitioner's own admission made in the proceedings instituted against him by the transferor of the opposite parties. On behalf of the petitioner tenant no expert evidence was adduced to rebut the evidence furnished through the report of Sri Nairn Khan and also through the report of the Advocate Commissioner. In the circumstances, the finding of fact recorded on the question of dilapidated nature of the building cannot be said to suffer from manifest error.

(3.) THE last argument of the learned counsel was that no estimate had been furnished on behalf of the landlords as was required to be done under Rule 17. An averment in this behalf was made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. THE averments made in para 4 of the writ petition have been replied to through paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that estimate prepared by Sri Nairn Khan had been placed on record which indicated that cost would come to Rs. 13,362.38. In respect of financial capacity of the landlords also it has been stated in the counter affidavit, evidence had been placed on record. It has further been stated that this question was not raised by the petitioner either before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority. In the circumstances, the argument raised regarding violation of Rule 17 is not substantiated and is also misconceived.