OM PRAKASH MUSLA Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.2.1995, passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) and the order dated 16.5.1997 passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the aforesaid order in appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant of the first floor of House No. 143, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, which consists of three rooms, bathrooms with other amenities. Respondent No. 3 landlord, is running a restaurant on the ground floor of the said building. Respondent No. 3 filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that disputed portion of the house in question in possession of the petitioner, is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. It was further stated that landlord -respondent No. 3 has sufficient funds to raise the construction and the map has been prepared which conforms to the bye -laws of the local authorities.

(2.) THE petitioner contested the application and denied that the disputed accommodation is in dilapidated condition. He also denied other allegations of respondent No. 3. The Prescribed Authority held that the disputed accommodation is in dilapidated condition and the landlord has fulfilled the requirement of provisions of Rule 17. The application was allowed by order dated 2.2.1995. The petitioner filed appeal. Respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal by order dated 16.5.1997. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) SHRI Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 that the disputed accommodation is in dilapidated condition, is erroneous. The petitioner had submitted report of Architect -Engineer and according to this report the disputed accommodation is not in dilapidated condition. The report submitted by the Architect on behalf of respondent No. 3 was incorrect. It is contended that the petitioner filed an application for making local inspection either by the Prescribed Authority itself for by a Commission, but the Prescribed Authority illegally rejected the application.