BANKEY LAL Vs. XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by means of this writ petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order d3ted 6th October, 1993, passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Moradabad, a copy of which is Annsxure 9 of the writ petition (wrongly mentioned as Anuexure 7 at page 21 of the writ petition),

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant in the shop in dispute. His landlord was respondent no. 2 Krishna Autar Agarwal, who alone had moved application for release of the shop in dispute before the Prescribed Authority on the ground that it was in a dilapidated condition and he wanted to get it demolished and, thereafter, reconstructed-vide Annexure 1 which is a copy of the said application. ln para 1 of Annexure No.1 Krishna Autar Agarwal, the sole landlord, pleaded that he was the sole owner of the disputed shop. He had contended that he had submitted a plea for the reconstruction of the shop to Municipal Board, Hasanpur, and was also possessed of means sufficient for its reconstruction after getting it demolished. THE release application was contested by the tenant who now is petitioner before this Court on various grounds. He contended that the contention of the landlord, that the shop was in a dilapidated condition, was wrong, that it did not require demolition and reconstruction and that the landlord had moved the application for release simply to pressurise him for enhancement of rent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon a copy of a notice dated 7-8-1993 which was served by laudlord Krishna Autap Agarwal upon tenant Bankey Lal informing him that a family settlement had taken place in his family on 2-8-1993 according to which all the property owned by the co-owners had been divided amongst them and in terms of the same, the shop in dispute had fallen in the exclusive share of his son, Dinesh Kumar. He further directed Bankey LaS to pay rent of the shop in dispute for the period subsequent to 2-8-1993 to his son, Dinesh Kumar He very clearly disclosed in the last line of the said notice that he had ceased to be the owner and landlord of the shop which was in the tenancy of Bankey Lal. It was also contended for the petitioner that Dinesh Kumar had not submitted any construction plan of the shop in dispute to the Municipal Board, Hasanpur nor he had disclosed that he was possessed of sufficient means for reconstruction of the shop in dispute after demolition, that he thus did not fulfil the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rent Control and Ejectment Rules 1972 ; that the release was claimed on the sole ground that the shop having become dilapidated was to be got demolished and reconstructed by the landlord and that due to the changed circumstances, the order of release of the shop in favour of Krishna Autar Agarwal was liable to be quashed. It also contended forcefully that the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad was faced with the said difficulty and, therefore, he did not name the person to whom Bankey Lal was to handover vacant possession.