R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manu Saxena, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.8.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the contesting respondent was allowed and the petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the building after reconstruction within one month from the date of the order. It appears that an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, was filed by the petitioner, which was allowed. The appeal and the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent were also dismissed. Thus, the order dated 25.5.1995 allowing the release application became final. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 3 Shri Nepal Singh was dismissed by this Court by Judgment dated 12.7.1996. It was, however, observed as under in the said judgment : - "It is, however, observed that the respondent No. 2 shall demolish and reconstruct the building in question within a period of one year from the date, the possession of the building in question is delivered to him." Possession of the building in question was delivered by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 on 30.8.1996. Thereafter, it was expected that in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the building shall be demolished and reconstructed within the time specified by this Court in order dated 12.7.1996, referred to above, but the same was not reconstructed. Consequently, the contesting respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to reconstruct the building and hand over possession of the same to him. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the said application. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the respondent. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties and perusing the record allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 17.8.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of the financial constraint the building in question could not be reconstructed. For that reason, he was not in a position to hand over the possession to the respondent. The Appellate Authority had considered all aspects of the matter and thereafter passed the impugned order. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. However, it is observed that the petitioner will comply with the order passed by respondent No. 1 within two months from today.;