JHANDU SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE FATEHPUR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAL Singh, respondent no 3, made an application for eviction of Ram Saran, who is a tenant of the accommodation on the ground floor and a separate application for eviction of Jhandu Singh who is a tenant of the first floor. Eviction of the tenants was sought on the ground that the landlord required the building for his genuine personal need and that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required to be demolished and re-constructed. Against Jhandu Singh, it was alleged that he owned a building close by where he could conveniently reside. The tenants denied that the building was needed by the landlord for his residential purpose or that it was in a dilapidated condition. This petition was originally filed by Jhandu Singh alone. Subsequently an application was made to implead Ram Saran also as a petitioner. I have today allowed that application. The Prescribed Authority felt satisfied about the bona fide need of the landlord and also had that the building was in a dilapidated condition and needed to be demolished and reconstructed. The Prescribed Authority further found that Jhandu Singh owned a house in bazar Bindaki of which two portions had been let out and one portion was kept for his own use. The learned District Judge also held that the building was very old and in a dilapidated condition and required to be pull down and re-constructed. The need of the landlord was also found to be bona fide. The learned judge, however, disagreed with the finding of the Prescribed Authority that Jhandu Singh had an accommodation in the house owned by him for residential purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioners un-successfully sought to challenge the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the learned District Judge that the house was in a dilapidated condition and needed to be demolished and reconstructed. The Prescribed Authority himself inspected the building and noted its condition in his inspection report. The learned District Judge appointed a Commissioner who in his report also stated that the building was in a dilapidated condition. As against these reports, no satisfactory evidence was led by the petitioners. It must, therefore, be held that the building was in a dilapidated condition and needed to be demolished and re-constructed. It was next contended that the landlord had failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 17. The argument is untenable. The landlord brought on record the plan of the proposed building which was approved by the Nagar Palika. The landlord asserted in the affidavits sworn by him personally that he was an affluent person and had the capacity to undertake the constructions. The prescribed authority as well as the learned District Judge felt satisfied about the financial capacity of the landlord to undertake the re-construction of the building according to the plan approved by the Nagar Palika. The tenants failed to produce any satisfactory evidence that the landlord did not have the requisite capacity to undertake the demolition and re-construction of the house. The requirements of Rule 17 have been fully satisfied. It was next contended that since the eviction of the petitioners was sought on the ground that the building was bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself after demolition and new construction, the prescribed Authority and the appellate court were bound to consider the comparative need of the tenants and the likely hardship that would be caused to them in case they were allowed to be evicted, I am not impressed by the argument. The application for eviction of the petitioners was made on two grounds: (1) that the landlord needed the accommodation bona fide for his personal residence and (2) that the building was a dilapidated one and needed to be demolished and re-constructed. Section 21 of Act XIII of 1972 provides that "the prescribed Authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely- (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust; (b) that the building is in dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction." Clause (b) is an independent ground justifying an order of eviction of the tenant. If the building is in such a condition that it has to be pulled down and re-constructed, the prescribed authority is empowered to grant permission for eviction of the tenant. Under clause (a) the requirement is that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself. For the applicability of clause (a) it is not necessary that the building should be in a dilapidated condition. An owner may need the building for his personal residential use in its existing form or he may feel that it could be suitable for his use only after demolition and new construction although the building may not be in a dilapidated condition at all. The proviso which requires that the need of the tenant shall also be considered is applicable to clause (a) only. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the requirement of considering the comparative need of the tenant is equally applicable to a case which falls under clause (b). Where the building is in such a condition that it is required to be demolished and a construction raised afresh, no question of considering the need of the tenant could arise for the condition of the building itself would not justify its use for any purpose. A building may be sound and safe for use but the status and position of the landlord may justify its reconstruction for his personal use. The law requires that in granting permission for eviction of a tenant from such a building the need and the likely hardship of the tenant should also be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced before me a copy of the application moved by the landlord. That application was made under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21(1). The prescribed Authority as well as the learned District Judge have held that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required to be demolished and re-constructed. The case was clearly covered by clause (b). Consideration of comparative need of the tenants did not arise in the case. The prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge rightly refrained from entering into that question. No other point has been pressed before me. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.