WASI AHMAD Vs. IIND A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the landlord for quashing the order dated 26.8.86 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Misc. Appeal No. 98 of 1984 whereby the appeal filed by the tenant (respondent 2) was partly allowed to the extent that after demolition the landlord shall make construction of a shop so as to allow the tenant to have right of re-entry under Section 24 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The shop in dispute is in the tenancy of Satya Narain respondent No. 2 and the petitioner is the landlord and owner of the same. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that the construction had become very old and were dilapidated and therefore, required demolition and new construction. The application was registered as P. A. Case No. 4 of 1983, Wasi Ahmad v. Satya Narain. The tenant contested the application and contended that the construction of the shop in dispute was not dilapidated and the application filed was not bona fide. It was only an effort to dispossess the tenant.

(3.) The Prescribed Authority, after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and upon consideration thereof vide order dated 15.2.1985 came to the conclusion that the construction of the shop in dispute were dilapidated and required demolition and fresh construction and on these findings directed the tenant to vacate the shop in dispute within one month. Aggrieved by the same the tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 98 of 1984, Satya Narain v. Wasi Ahmad. The appellate court affirmed the findings with regard to the dilapidated condition. In so far as the new construction which were likely to be raised it found that the map submitted by the landlord which though sanctioned as per byelaws of the Municipal Board was only in respect of construction of residential house and it did not provide any shop being constructed which could be given to the tenant, in case of exercise of his right of re-entry under Section 24(1) of the Act. The appellate court considering the contention of the appellant that in case no provision is made for construction of a shop, the option and the right of re-entry and allotment as envisaged in Section 24 of the Act would become redundant and futile modified the order of release to the extent that the landlord shall construct a new shop as well so that the object of Section 24 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the Rules are also fulfilled and the right of the tenant of re-entry is not defeated on account of mala fide action of the landlord. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.