RAGHUVIR SARAN Vs. IIND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.3.1986, passed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing the application filed by respondent No. 3, under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), releasing the disputed property in his favour and the order dated 7.5.1988, passed by respondent No. 1, dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order. Respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act against the petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 10 on the allegation that the property in dispute was in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. He alleged that the estimate of demolition and reconstruction has been prepared and he has financial capacity to raise the construction. The plan has been duly prepared in accordance with Bye -laws of Moradabad Development Authority. The petitioner contested the application and denied the allegation of the landlord -respondent. The Prescribed Authority recorded finding that the disputed accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition. He further found that the landlord has financial capacity to raise the construction after its demolition. A map has been prepared which has been sanctioned by the Moradabad Development Authority. The application was allowed by order dated 31.3.1986 and the order has been affirmed in appeal by respondent No. 1. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an affidavit in which he stated that he is a man of financial status. He has certain property other than the property in dispute and that he has entered into an agreement to sell the property. He has also stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that he had sold some land to one Raghunandan Singh and he has received Rs. 56,000/ - from him. He further stated that he has Rs. 1,00,000/ - in his Savings Bank Account. The fact that the petitioner has Rs. 1,00,000/ - in his Savings Bank Account was not denied. Respondent No. 3 has filed a counter -affidavit and has annexed copy of the account for the years 1983 -84 as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. In this account a sum of Rs. 88,030 has been shown in the account of respondent No. 3. This fact fully establishes the version of respondent No. 3 that he has financial capacity to raise the construction. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 failed to establish that the map submitted by him conforms to the Bye -laws of the local authority. Respondent No. 3 has submitted a map for sanction before the Moradabad Development Authority which was sanctioned by the authority and the sanctioned map was filed before the Prescribed Authority. There was nothing to show that the sanction was wrongly obtained or the Map which was submitted before the Prescribed Authority did not conform to the Bye -laws of the local authority. The finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 that Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act has been complied with, does not suffer from any illegality.