Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Hanif vs Ixth Addl. District Judge And Anr. on 13 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(78)AWC2368
Author: Prakash Krishna
Bench: Prakash Krishna
ORDER Prakash Krishna, J.
1. This is tenant's writ petition. It arises out of P.A. Case No. 4 of 1994 instituted by the landlord Subash Chand Maheshwari, the respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act of 1972 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the disputed accommodation is a shop situate at G.T. Road, Qasba and Pergana Khatauji, district Muzaffarnagar, is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 27th of January, 1996, which has been reversed by the appellate court in Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 1996. The validity of the appellate order has been questioned in the present writ petition.
2. The sole ground raised in support of the writ petition is that the finding recorded by the appellate court that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction is perverse and against the material on record. The shop in question is a part of a two storey building. The plea of the respondent landlord which has been found favour with the appellate court was that the entire building is in a dilapidated condition and he wants to raise new construction after getting the old construction demolished. On the other hand the case of the petitioner tenant was that the shop in question is not in a dilapidated condition. Both the parties in support of their respective cases filed affidavits of various persons. The respondent landlord got filed a report of an expert namely Bhupendra Kumar who reported that the entire building and the tenanted premises is not in satisfactory condition, that there are clear cracks of alarming nature and the building is not repairable. Shri Madhukar Shyam, the another expert submitted a report dated 18.5.1995 produced by the petitioner tenant that the plaster of the building is quits in good condition and the structure of the building consists of load bearing walls. The learned appellate court by the judgment dated 21st of October, 1997, impugned in the writ petition reached to the conclusion that the building is in a "dilapidated condition".
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the court below has not considered the two reports objectively and thus, the finding recorded by it is vitiated. The copies of the two reports of the experts have been annexed alongwith supplementary-affidavit filed in the writ petition. The learned appellate court found that the certain features is common in both the reports. It is accepted to both the experts that the building consists of Lakhori bricks (small bricks) with mud mortar. The roof of the building is rested on wooden planks (Karles). The expert of the petitioner has further stated that "the Karies are without any leakage and good in condition except one or two Karies." In contra, the report of Bhupendra Kumar, the expert produced by the respondent landlord has reported that projection made of R.C.C. has lost its plaster and reinforcement is rested though bent down. While noticing the present condition, the expert has further said, in the report that there are cracks in the walls and wooden work is in bad condition and the building is not repairable. He suggested that the building must be demolished and requires reconstruction to avoid any accidental event. In the face of these two reports, the appellate court preferred to place reliance on the report given by the expert of the landlord.
4. This Court in Smt. Shanti Devi v. First Additional District Judge. Kanpur. 1983 ARC 21, has held that before a building can be held to be in a dilapidated condition it needs not necessarily be in a ruinous condition or fallen down. It is not correct that it must be unsafe or unfit for habitation.
5. In R.D. Gupta v. Additional District Judge and Ors. 1976 RCC 502, it has been observed thus "keeping this rule in mind it appears to me that for the application of this provision it is not necessary that the building either must be in ruinous condition or fallen down. It is also not correct that it must be unsafe or unfit for habitation. Even if part of the building is in dilapidated or dangerous condition and has fallen into the state of decay or disrepairs requiring reconstruction, the same may fulfil the requirement of the aforesaid clause. The word "dilapidated" is not a word of art or science". The said decision has been followed in the case of Smt. Chandrawati v. District Judge, Pauri and Ors. 1979 AWC 632 and Taqdeer Ali and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority and Ors. 1978 ARC 133 and Pyare Lal v. IVth Additional District Judge, Bijnore and Ors. 1980 ARC 240.'
6. Thus, it follows that the consistent view of this Court is that in order that a portion may be treated in a dilapidated condition it is not necessary that it should be fallen down or It should be in complete ruins. The fact that the building is about 78 years old and is made of Kakaiya bricks with mud mortar having wooden planks (Karies) in the ceiling and indisputably few of them have been bent and lost their utility, as noted even by the expert of the petitioner, I find that the view taken by the appellate court is a reasonable and plausible view that the buildingin question is in a dilapidated condition.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash , has held that a Jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appellate jurisdiction and if the view taken by the court below is reasonable and in accordance with law, the High Court should not interfere merely on the ground that another view is also plausible. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the finding recorded by the appellate court that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition is perverse, is meritless and the same is rejected. As the landlord satisfies the other conditions namely financial capacity to demolish the building and raise new construction and map etc., no interference in the present writ petition is called for.
8. At the end the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. Additional District Judge 1997 (2) ARC 173 : 1996 AWC (Supp) 5 25, wherein this Court while dismissing the writ petition of a tenant ordered that the respondent landlord shall construct the building as proposed by him, possibly within six months and after construction shall offer it to the petitioner. The said observation was made by the Court in the facts and circumstances of that case. Neither under the Act nor under the Rules framed thereunder authorizes the Court to give any such direction. It is the petitioner who got the reconstruction of the building delayed by about 10 years by filing the present writ petition.
9. In this view of the matter, no direction in this regard is required. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000.