KAMAL NARAIN Vs. SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the tenant, challenging an order passed by the trial court, allowing the application filed under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, as has been affirmed in appeal.

(2.) Following submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant petitioner:-

(3.) Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord, on the other hand, contends that the courts below have confined their judgment to the pleadings put forth by the parties, and the arguments advanced before this Court are not in tune with it. It is also stated that so far as power of attorney is concerned, no objection was raised, nor any issue in that regard was framed. Learned counsel further submits that a map in accordance with the bye-laws had been prepared, and since the total plot area was less than 100 sq. yard, and therefore, there was no requirement of prior approval being obtained from the concerned Development Authority. It is also stated that material in the nature of a certificate of Engineer as well as the local authority existed on record to show that building was more than 120 years old, and was in dilapidated condition.