JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the tenant, challenging an order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority under The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act'), whereby her application under Section 28 of the Act has been rejected.

2. The petitioner, Smt. Fatima is a tenant in a shop situate in Churi Wali Gali, Mohalla Tansenganj, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur. Smt. Fatima shall hereinafter be called 'the tenant'. The original tenant in the shop was the tenant's husband and after his death, she has inherited the tenancy, where she claims to have a shop selling bangles. The landlady of the shop is Smt. Shahana Siddiqui, to whom the tenant pays rent at the rate of Rs.550/- per month. The current tenancy is there since the time of the former landlord, Kamal Ahmad Siddiqui. It is claimed on behalf of the tenant that the shop to the east of the demised shop collapsed during the rainy season of 2016, on account of which the eastern wall of the demised shop and a part of the lintel in the roof need repairs. The tenant has requested the landlady, respondent no.1 several times to get the demised shop repaired, but she did not oblige. Instead, the landlady flatly refused the request for repairs and threatened to get the shop vacated. Thereupon, the tenant sued for a permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sitapur seeking an injunction in terms that she may not be dispossessed from the demised shop otherwise than in due course of law. The said suit was numbered on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sitapur as O.S. No.615 of 2016, which is still pending.

3. It is the tenant's further case that the landlady has refused to accept rent since the month of January, 2020, whereupon it was remitted by money order on 22.09.2016. The money order was also refused. The tenant is depositing the rent in Court under Section 30 of the Act vide Misc. Case No. 147 of 2016. The said case is also pending. The tenant caused a notice to be served upon the landlady through her Counsel on 06.12.2017 to get the eastern wall of the demised shop repaired, which the landlady duly received. But, the landlady did not get any repairs carried out, nor did she answer the notice. Accordingly, the tenant made an application to the Prescribed Authority under Section 28 of the Act, with a prayer that the eastern wall of the demised shop, details of which were given at the foot of the application, together with the western part of the lintel in the roof and the other damages to the shop, may be permitted to be repaired and the expenses defrayed out of rent payable for the period of two years.

4. Objections to the said applications were filed on behalf of the landlady, saying that the demised shop is in a dilapidated condition and the entire building, of which it is a part, is dilapidated. A substantial part of the building has fallen down over the period of a year and a half. The tenant or her daughters are not doing any business and the demised shop is virtually a rubble. It is mentioned that on 06.01.2015, the adjoining shop's projection collapsed, leading to injury sustained by many. At that time, the eastern wall of the demised shop also collapsed. The projection of the demised shop collapsed during the rainy season. The tenant and her daughters are insistent upon getting the demised shop, which is dilapidated, reconstructed forcibly. The building, where the shop is, located is about 100-150 years old and a danger to human life. There are then some not very relevant pleadings to the proceedings in hand, that say that the tenant has purchased a premises on a road called Krishna Babu Wali Sarak, that includes a house and three shops. The tenant and her daughters carry on their business there. This property had been purchased in the names of the tenant's daughters through a registered sale