MOHD HANIF Vs. IX ADDL D J MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is tenant's writ petition. It arises out of P. A. Case No. 4 of 1994 instituted by the landlord Subash Chand Maheshwari, the respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act of 1972 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the disputed accommodation is a shop situate at G. T. Road, Qasba and Pergana Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar, is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 27th of January, 1996 which has been reversed by the appellate Court in rent control appeal No. 7 of 1996. The validity of the appellate order has been questioned in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE sole ground raised in support of the writ petition is that the finding recorded by the appellate Court that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction is perverse and against the material on record. THE shop in question is a part of a two storey building. THE plea of the respondent landlord which has been found favour with the appellate Court was that the entire building is in a dilapidated condition and he wants to raise new construction after getting the old construction demolished. On the other hand the case of the petitioner tenant was that the shop in question is not in a dilapidated condition. Both the parties in support of their respective cases filed affidavits of various persons. THE respondent landlord got filed a report of an expert namely Bhupendra Kumar who reported that the entire building and the tenanted premises is not in satisfactory condition, that there are clear cracks of alarming nature and the building is not repairable. Shri Madhukar Shyam, the another expert submitted a report dated 18-5-1995 produced by the petitioner tenant that the plaster of the building is quite in good condition and the structure of the building consists of load bearing walls. THE learned appellate Court by the judgment dated 21st of October, 1997 impugned in the writ petition reached to the conclusion that the building is in a "dilapidated condition".

(3.) IN R. D. Gupta v. Additional District Judge & Ors. , 1976 All INdia Rent Control Cases Journal 502, it has been observed thus "keeping this rule in mind it appears to me that for the application of this provision it is not necessary that the building either must be in ruinous condition or fallen down. It is also not correct that it must be unsafe or unfit for habitation. Even if part of the building is in dilapidated or dangerous condition and has fallen into the state of decay or disrepairs requiring reconstruction, the same may fulfil the requirement of the aforesaid clause. The word "dilapidated" is not a word of art or science". The said decision has been followed in the case of Smt. Chandrawati v. District Judge, Pauri & Ors. , 1979 AWC 632 and Taqdeer Ali Ors. v. Prescribed Authority & Ors. , 1978 ARC 133 and Pyare Lal v. IVth Additional District Judge, Bijnore & Ors. , 1980 ARC 240.