GIRISH CHANDRA BHUTT Vs. BAL KRISHAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs who were the owners of a building against the judgment and decree of learned Ist Additional District Judge, dated October 30, 1974 affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Almora dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the reconstruction of the building in a part of which the defendants were tenants. The question for determination centres round the interpretation of Section 29(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (for short the Act, 1972). The facts are that the plaintiffs were the owners of the building known as 'Manullah Building' situated in Karkhana Bazar, Almora. There were two shops in the said building besides other accommodation; of one of the shops defendant No. 1 was a tenant and in the other shop defendant No. 2 was a tenant. On the night of April 2, 1973, the entire building belonging to the plaintiffs was gutted in fire. The plaintiffs obtained permission from the Municipal Board to reconstruct the building, but the defendants caused obstruction. The defendants asserted that they were entitled to re-erect the shop under Section 29(2) of the Act, 1972.

(2.) BOTH the trial Court and the Appellate Court accepted the case of the defendants that they were entitled to re-erect the portions of their tenancy under Section 29(2) of the Act. The case of the plaintiffs is that Section 29(2) of the Act, 1972 will apply only when the entire building under tenancy constituting a unit is destroyed by virtue of the reasons, as stated in sub-section (2) of Section 29, but if tenancy relates only to a part of the building, which as a whole was destroyed by the reasons given in sub-section (2) of Section 29, then Section 29(2) will not confer any right on the tenants to rebuild their portions of tenancy only.

(3.) IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the reconstruction of the building by the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. Appeal allowed.