M.R.SHAH, J - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 and 11.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 5459 of 2001 and Review Application No. 877 of 2016 respectively, the original defendants/tenants have preferred the present appeals.
(3.) Respondent No. 1 herein-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for release of the building from the father of the appellant herein (Late Guru Charan Lal) who was a tenant in respect of two rooms with veranda on the back side on the lowest storey and the husband of Appellant No. 2 (Late Roshan Lal) was tenant in respect of another portion of the property on the same floor. It was stated that the building is in a dilapidated condition. A bonafide requirement of the landlord was also pleaded, however, subsequently the landlord gave up the plea of bonafide requirement under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act and contested the eviction petition only on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. That the learned Prescribed Authority, Almora rejected the release application filed by the landlord. 3.1 Being aggrieved with the Order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 1998 under Section 22 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Almora. That vide Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2001, the learned District Judge, Almora rejected the appeal filed by the landlord holding that the building is not in a dilapidated condition and it does not require demolition and reconstruction. Being aggrieved with the Order passed by the learned District Judge in confirming the Order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed Writ Petition No. 5459 of 2001 before the High Court. By Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2014, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition and ordered eviction of the appellants herein-tenants. That thereafter, the Review Application was preferred by the appellants herein which came to be dismissed by the High Court. That thereafter, the appellants filed SLP (C) Nos. 442-443 of 2015 before this Court. Vide order dated 30.01.2015, this Court granted the leave and set aside the Orders dated 25.08.2014 and 20.11.2014 passed by the High Court and remanded back the matter to the High Court to decide the same in accordance with law. That thereafter, on remand, by impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition preferred by the landlord releasing the building in question under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. That thereafter, the appellants herein-tenants preferred Review Application. The same came to be dismissed vide impugned Order dated 11.08.2017. Hence the present appeals.;