NARAIN LAL Vs. 3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were the tanants. Opposite parties nos. 3 to 5, who are the landlords, filed an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition, it needed demolition and reconstruction. PETITIONERS filed an objection denying the case of the landlords.

(2.) LANDLORDS filed the application for release on the ground that the disputed shop was about hundred years old and was in a dilapidated condition, two rear portions have already fallen down and front portion was also likely to fall down. The shop was irreparable. The demolition and reconstruction was a must. The plan has also been sanctioned by the Nagar Palika. They wanted to demolish the shop after it was released and reconstruct new shops to augment their income as well.

(3.) THE appellate authority made a spot inspection on 12-1-93. THE inspection note (paper No. 42/1-A) forms part of the record.