Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

Heard Sri Neeraj Agrawal, learned counsel for the peti#31;tioner and perused the record.

2. The three petitioners namely Vishambhar Dayal, Om Prakash Singhal and Nathoo Singh are tenants of three different shops adjoining to each other situated at Mohalla Jogipada, Qasba Debai, District Bulandshahr. The respondents No.2 to 17, owner of shops filed application dated 15.10.1981 under Section 21 (1)(b) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") alleging that shops are more than 100 years old and now in a dilapidated condition therefore, should be directed to be vacated by petitioner-tenants so that the same may be demolished and reconstructed. The application was registered as Rent Case No.78 of 1981.

3. Besides the three petitioners, application in fact included one more tenant namely Sahkari Kraya Vikry Samiti Ltd.. With regard to its dilapidated condition, landlord supported the application with the report of an Engineer (Architect) Sri Chandra Kant Saxena, who had made inspection of the premises on 2nd August, 1981 and submitted report on 31.8.1981. The copy of report of Sri Saxena has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, which says that building is in a very bad condition. Sri Saxena also filed his affidavit dated 20.3.1982 in support of his report.

4. Contradicting the case set up by respondent-landlords, petitioners submitted a report of Sri C.Singh, Retired Civil Engineer, Khurja, who said that the building has not been properly maintained and is out of repair for a pretty long time resulting in damage to some part thereof but it is not in dilapidated condition or dangerous but only proper repair can make it safe so as to be utilized for many years to come. The exact words of the expert are:

"The building seems to be out of repairs for a pretty long time which has resulted in crumbling down of plaster here and there and at these places there is corrosion in bricks. A few wooden beams of the shops have also bent or there edge eaten up they have been given support from below, but much beams can be very easily replaced and crumbled plater can be replastered with cement and sand."

5. He also filed affidavit in support of his report. The Prescribed Authority re#31;jected application observing that though some part of disputed building has fallen, the notice of landlord shows that two rooms in the building have already fallen, yet that by itself would not render the building dilapidated. Besides, there is no compli#31;ance of Rule 17 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1972") and therefore applica#31;tion under Section 20(1)(b) of Act, 1972, cannot be allowed. He consequently re#31;jected the same vide judgment dated 4.10.1982.

6. The landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No.39 of 1982 and also filed additional evidence showing sanction of map by municipal authorities for reconstruction of the building. The Appellate Court found, when a building is in a bad condition and needs major repair, or started decay due to its old construction etc., it would satisfy the term "dilapidated condition" and consequently after looking into the evidence and material on record, recorded finding that building is in dilapidated condition and needs demolition and reconstruction, as prayed by the landlord. The Appellate Court conse#31;quently allowed application vide impugned judgment dated 21.8.1985.

7. Some of the findings recorded by Appellate Court demonstrating upon condi#31;tion of the building would be appropriate to be referred herein:

"6....Mostly the external walls are out of plumb and out of plumb walls are very dangerous and may fall at any time. Few part of the building became f late in rainy days. The wooden beams have completed their live and have bend down to a dangerous state. Though all the witnesses of respondents have stated that the building is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document