JUDGMENT :

ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Madhur Kant Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel, assisted by Sri R.K. Singh Raj, learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3.

2. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorary quashing the order passed by opposite party no. 1 dated 23.09.2009 contained in Annexure No. 1 in P.A. Case No. 1/2004, Buddhi Lal and Another vs. Babulal Chawdhary, rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Section 29 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 of the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow reconstruction of the tenement in dispute within the stipulated and reasonable time granted by this Hon'ble Court.”

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that in the year 2004 an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1972’) was filed by respondent/landlord before the Prescribed Authority praying for release of two shops under tenancy of the petitioner. The said application was registered as P.A. No. 1 of 2004. Written statement was filed by the petitioner. It is contended that a civil suit was also filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction in which a stay order was granted on 01.03.2004, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition. However, despite existence of the said interim order both the shops were demolished by the respondent/landlord. The petitioner claims to have lodged a first information report on 01.08.2005 against the respondent/landlord but in a petition filed by the landlord, a stay order was granted by this Court whereby the arrest of the respondent/landlord was stayed. Subsequently a charge sheet was filed in the said criminal case in which again the landlord/respondent is said to have approached this Court in which certain orders were passed.

4. Be that as it may, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 29-A of the Act, 1972 on 06.08.2005, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition. The said application was filed in the pending application under Section 21 of the Act, 1972 filed by the respondent/landlord namely case P.A. No. 1 of 2004. The prayer in the said application was for a direction to be issued to the landlord/respondent to reconstruct the shops under tenancy of the tenant or to permit the tenant to reconstruct the shops. The landlord filed his objections to the said application and the learned court below vide impugned order dated 23.09.2009, a copy of which is Annexure- 1 to the petition, rejected the application. Being aggrieved, instant petition has been filed.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the aforesaid case under Section 21 of the Act, 1972 was filed and there was a stay order that had been granted by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner in the suit for permanent injunction filed by him as such in order to frustrate the said stay order the shops were got demolished by the respondent/landlord. As the said shops had been demolished during the pendency of the aforesaid application before the Prescribed Authority as such an application under Section 29-A of the Act, 1972 was filed. He contends that once a mischief was sought to be created by the landlord/respondent in the matter inasmuch as the shops in dispute were themselves demolished by the landlord/respondent for which a first information report was lodged as such it was in the fitness of things that the Prescribed Authority should have allowed the said application and should have either directed the landlord/respondent herein to reconstruct the shops or in the alternative to have permitted the petitioner to reconstruct the said shops. He contends that the said application has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide impugned