HARISH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for both the parties this writ petition was dismissed by me on 9.8.2005 with certain directions.

(2.) DURING arguments learned Counsel for the landlord -respondents offered that in case tenants agreed to give up their right of re -entry then landlord was ready to pay damages/compensation of Rs. 35,000/ - to the tenants in lieu of relinquishment of their right of re -entry. The tenants have out rightly rejected the said offer.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in S.J. Abbas v. M. Yamin : AIR 2004 SC 3683 : 2004 SCFBRC 345 : 2004 (57) ALR 11 (Sum) : 2004 (19) AIC 57, while interpreting Madhya Pradesh Rent Control Act directed that for delay in delivery of newly constructed portion to the tenant -landlords must be liable to pay damages equivalent to the rent of the newly constructed portion.' In view of the said authority I had given similar directions in my judgment which have been quoted above. However, under section 24(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 tenant is entitled to allotment of new building only if he proves his requirement. Said sub -section is quoted below: - -