LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-209

SURESH CHANDRA VISHWAKARMA Vs. MANDALADHIKARI AND OTHERS

Decided On January 17, 2003
Suresh Chandra Vishwakarma Appellant
V/S
Mandaladhikari And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through this writ petition, has prayed for issurance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.8.1996 (Annexure-S to the petition), passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda and the judgment and order dated 7.2.2000 (Annexure-10 to the petition), passed by the VII Additional District Judge. Gonda.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner, who admittedly is landlord to House No. 103/264/181, situate in Civil Lines of city Gonda and bounded to the north by a public road, to the south by the land of one Gursharan Srivastava, to the east by vacant land of the petitioner and to the west by a passage and thereafter by a house belonging to one Krishna Chandra Mahanth, an Advocate, made an application under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act. for short, alleging that the house in question was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and de novo construction. The opposite parties contested that application. They denied that the premises in question was in dilapidated condition and alleged that the said premises is being used for office purposes as also for residence of the Divisional Officer, Information Department, U.P, The learned Prescribed Authority, after taking the evidence of both the parties, rejected the application holding that neither the said building was in dilapidated condition, nor the petitioner had the financial capacity of raising new construction after demolishing the same. Aggrieved from the order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal which too failed to bear fruit and was dismissed by an order dated 7.2.2000 passed by Sri R.S. Maurya, VII Additional District Judge, Gonda. The petitioner has now challenged both these orders of the authorities below in this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard both the parties in extenso and have also perused the material on record.