GANGA RAM SINGH Vs. SURESH CHAND MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the appellate Court under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ( in short the Act) whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord against the order passed by the prescribed authority.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent-landlords filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the accommodation in question on the ground that the accommodation is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. Before the prescribed authority the petitioner-tenant challenged the assertions made by the landlord to the fact that the building is not in dilapidated condition and therefore, cannot be released in favour of respondent-landlords. The prescribed authority, after exchange of pleadings, allowed the parties to file the report of expert regarding condition of building in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the building is in dilapidated condition or not. The petitioner tenant filed report of Sri S.C. Nigam, an expert, who submitted report that the building only needs plaster and since there is not even a single crack in any wall or ceiling of the house under the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant, building cannot be said to be in dilapidated condition. On the other hand landlords filed report of Sri J.N. Dubey who stated that the building is in dilapidated condition and further stated that the building seems to be more than 60 years old and is constructed of lime mortar and brick work.

(3.) The prescribed authority arrived at a conclusion that the building since does not require demolition and can be repaired, therefore, cannot be said to be in dilapidated condition. Aggrieved by the order of the prescribed authority the landlords preferred appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority reversed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and found that the building is in such a condition that it requires demolition and reconstruction. The Appellate Authority has also recorded a finding that the building is more than 75 years old and also that the part of the building had already fallen down. The appellate authority considered the reports of both the experts and other materials on the record and arrived at the conclusion that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. Thus the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlords and directed eviction of the tenant for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.