LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-149

SHARIFAN Vs. XLTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

Decided On August 02, 2007
SHARIFAN Appellant
V/S
XLTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This is a tenant's petition. The landlady, respondent No. 3, purchased house in dispute vide sale deed dated 1. 6. 1989. She sent notice dated 10. 9,1990, informed the petitioner that his tenancy is in a part of house in dispute. Considering of one room @ Rs. 50, that the tenement is in dilapidated condition and not a habitable condition as the walls have developed big cracks and have left their Joints with passage of time and are in irreparable condition. It was also informed to the petitioner as tenant that he has also failed to pay the rent w. e. f. 1. 6. 1989 inspite of demand, as such his tenancy is determined, hence he should hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the house in dispute within seven days of the receipt of the notice the respondents alongwith arrears of rent w. e. f. 1. 6. 1989 otherwise proceeding in accordance with law for her eviction would be initiated by the landlord.

(2.) IT appears from the notice that the house in dispute was in dilapidated condition and the landlord wanted to demolish the existing building and construct a new building on the same site.

(3.) AVERMENTS were also made in the affidavit to the effect that the walls of the tenement were intact and strong enough to hold the weight of the entire building ; that the house did not require any demolition and reconstruction. It was also averred that the grounds in this regards had been taken by the landlady only to give colour to the case. It was also denied that the land lady was living in two small rooms and it was averred that infact she is living in spacious house alongwith her family members in the adjacent house. It was stated in the aforesaid affidavit that the tenants had definite information that landlord have no building plan and no source to arrange the requisite amount for reconstruction, as such there was no question for vacating the accommodation in dispute in the circumstances.