- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Both these Writ Petitions are directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17-4-1976 releasing the disputed premises in favour of the landlord- respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 7-3-1983 dismissing the appeals against the said order. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in both these Writ Petitions are owners of the property in question. There were four tenants in the disputed premises. They filed separate applications under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against these four tenants on the allegations that the disputed premises was in a dilapidated conditions. Dewan Chand is tenant of shop Nos. 752 and 753 Kalwa is a tenant of shop No. 751, Haneef is a tenant of shop No. 755 and Smt. Bitauli is a tenant of house No. 754. It was stated that these shops and house were about 80 years' old and were in a dilapidated condition. They want to construct a double storied house. They have also got sanctioned a map to this effect by the Municipal Board and have financial capacity to construct the same.
(2.) THE tenants contested the applica tions and denied that the disputed shops and house were in a dilapidated condition. THE Prescribed Authority rejected all the applications by a common order dated 17-4-1976. THE landlord-respondents preferred four separate appeals against the order of the Prescribed Authority passed on those applications. THE Appellate Authority al lowed the appeals by a common order dated 7-3-1983 on the finding that the disputed shops and house were in a dilapidated condition and require demolition and reconstruction. THE landlords have finan cial capacity to reconstruct the shops and house. THE three tenants, namely, Smt. Bitauli, Kalwa and Mohammad Haneef have filed Writ Petition No. 3548 of 1983 and Dewan Chand Pansari has filed Writ Petition No. 3549 of 1983. I have heard Sri. B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for the-petitioners and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the respon dents. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority. The main question is as to whether the dis puted accommodations are in a dilapidated conditions. The landlord-respondents have filed the affidavit of Avinash Chandra Gupta, an Engineer before the Prescribed Authority. The tenant Dewan Chand filed affidavit of one Satya Prakash Bansal, an Engineer. The version of both the reports were contradic tory. Sir Avinash Chandra Gupta in his affidavit has stated that the disputed premises was in a dilapidated condition. Sri Satya Prakash Bansal filed affidavit indicating that shop Nos. 752 and 753 were not in dilapidated condition. The Prescribed Authority took the view that Avinash Chandra Gupta in his affidavit did not indicate that the building was in a dangerous condition as to affect the life of the person passing near it and it cannot be held that it is in a dilapidated condition. The application was rejected. In appeal the landlords filed an application before the Appellate Authority to appoint a Com missioner to make a local inspection and submit a report. The Court allowed the said application and Sir Bali Ram Gupta, Advocate was appointed as a Commis -. sioner. He submitted a report dated 16-3-1982 indicating the position of the build ing and found that the shops and house were in a dilapidated condition. The shops and house were about 80 year's old. It was further observed that some persons are residing in that building but if any con struction is to be made on the first floor, the entire building has to be demolished. The tenants filed objection to the said application. The Appellate Authority, after examining the report of the Advocate Commissioner, found that the disputed premises were in a dilapidated condition.
(3.) THE Commissioner had reported that except for the northern wall, the en tire portion in the occupation of Kalwa was made up of unbaked bricks. THE entire building was in a decaying condition. It is covered with mud and thatch except for patchwork in the building. Most of the building was a "kachcha" and was a decay ing structure. THE tenants filed objection to the report of the Commissioner. THE report of the Commissioner was affirmed subject to the evidence. It was for the tenant-petitioners to lead evidence to show that the report of the Advocate Com missioner was factually wrong. THE petitioners did not lead any evidence to establish that the report of the Commis sioner was incorrect. THEy contended that the Advocate Commissioner had in his report, stated that the persons, who were living in the house, may continue to live but if any structure is to be raised on the first floor, the entire building has to be demolished and on such report the entire building cannot be said to be in a dilapidated condition. THE report of the Advocate Commissioner was to be read as a whole. THE building consisted of residen tial portion and the shops. THEy have been found about 80 years old, some of the portion is of unbaked bricks. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision Vakil uddin v. Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1952 SC 527; Ram Kishan v. Deputy Director, Unreported Cases 655; Sultan Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and others, 1991 RD 455; Smt. Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Jasmel Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Saxena and others, in sup port of his contention that the Court shall consider the. entire evidence and if the Appellate Authority reversed the judg ment of the trial Court it must assigned the reasons for it.;