- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. Sri M.K. Rajvanshi is not present for the respondent. This writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order passed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 arising out of proceedings under section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner is the tenant of premises No. 25.16, Karanchi Khana (old No. 25/13), Karanchi Khana, Kanpur Nagar which consist of four rooms, latrine, bath, galiyara and an open roof on rent of Rs. 30/- p.m. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners and landlord of the aforesaid premises. They filed application under section 21(1)(b) of the Act inter alia on the ground that part of the premises No. 25/16, Karanchi Khana, Kanpur Nagar consist of four rooms, latrine, bath and an open roof is in dilapidated condition. The allegation was that house was over 100 year old. The house was made of lakhauri bricks. The wall has became very weak, mortar was of mud, the walls has developed crack. It requires demolition and new constructions. Further allegations were that the landlord had not duly prepared building plan conforming the bye-laws and Regulations for raising new constructions after demolition of the existing old building. The landlords have also got prepared estimate of expenditure to be incurred towards the proposed demolition and new constructions hence the prayer was that the premises in question be released in their favour for demolition and new construction. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed his objection dated 30.8.1993 against the application for release moved by the landlord. It was specifically stated in the objection that the premises No. 25/16 was jointly purchased in the name of other persons together with the landlord viz. Amar Nath, Smt. Geeta Devi, Vishwanath, Smt. Kanak Lata and Deepak Kumar through guardian Ganga Sagar Gupta in 1982. The landlord never initiated to the petitioner regarding the fact that they were landlord and owner of the premises in question. However, Amar Nath Gupta intimate to the petitioner that he should pay rent to Sri Ganga Sagar Gupta and the petitioner had been paying rent to him who received the rent and issued receipts. It was further stated that the petitioner has got passage also apart from the premises mentioned in the release application and the area mentioned by the landlord was wrong. The premises in the tenancy of the petitioner was neither dilapidated nor required demolition. The disputed premises was not made of lakhauri bricks rather it was made of pucca bricks and was in strong position and was fully safe. The landlord wanted to construct the commercial complex after demolition of the premises in question so that the same may be subsequently let out on premium and high rent. The plan for reconstruction had not been passed by the local authority, competent to pass the same and no map was filed before the Prescribed Authority. The landlord have no financial capacity for demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question. The estimate for demolition and re-construction has not been filed. Further submission of the petitioner in his objection against release application was that house did not require any demolition and re-construction as it was safe and pucca house. The requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act were not complied by the landlord and necessary parties were not impleaded; residential premises could not be released for commercial purposes and the application for release was liable to be dismissed. In support of his case the landlord filed the report of Sri Brij Kishor Pathak, Architect Engineer dated 30.6.1993. Regarding their financial the landlord did not file any account book, or the copy of bank account or income tax return rather the private documents i.e. the certificate issued by Uma Shankar Gupta, Partner of Manu Enterprises and A.G. Sons were filed. It is submitted that the landlords had no financial capacity for demolition and reconstruction of the disputed premises. The petitioner filed counter-affidavit stating therein that the landlord had no financial capacity to reconstruct the house nor the building required demolition and reconstruction nor the plan for reconstruction was passed by the local authority. The estimate of reconstruction and demolition filed by the landlord was not correct to support the plan of the landlord. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the date of inspection by the Architect Engineer Sri Brij Kishor Pathak was not mentioned in the affidavit filed by him and in fact absolutely no inspection was done. The house in question was in the pucca strong position and was not in dilapidated condition nor the same required demolition. It was mentioned that the landlord filed an application under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code but the petitioner was not impleaded therein. From the police report submitted in the said case it was evident that the house in question was pucca and in strong position and not in dilapidated condition. The petitioner also filed the report of Architect Engineer dated 12.3.1994 in which it is clearly stated that the house in question was not in dilapidated condition and did not require demolition or reconstruction. He reported that the house is in good condition and was structurally sound. It was further stated that the same was renovated by providing R.B. Slab rood, flooring, plastering etc. and the same was about 12 years old as per examination. The open terrace is also provided with time concrete, terracing with plaster with cement and sand. Bricks were not effected by saltpetre and there was no dampness on walls inside and outside. The cement plastered washed and was in good condition. None of the brick masonry walls was out of lump or tilted and there was no settlement of foundations. He further stated that due to renovation and better maintenance, the future economic life of the building in question has increased by 40 years. It further appears that there were two contradictory reports regarding the facts as to whether the disputed premises was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction or not. One report was submitted by the petitioner. Architect Engineer and another report was submitted by the Architect Engineer of the landlord. It was the duty of the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority to have made inspection of the premises in question as has been held by this Court in Krishna Kumar v. Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, 2000 38 AllLR 541. In the absence of any spot inspection by the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority the finding that the premises in question was dilapidated and require re-construction are vitiated in as much as against both the reports objection and counter objections were filed by the parries. It is also submitted that another requirement under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act is that there should be plan duly prepared and conforms to the bye-laws or the Regulations of the local authority or other statutory authority under any law in that behalf for the time being in force. In the present the landlord in spite of the demand made by the petitioner did not supply the copy of map/plan for reconstruction of the premises in question. Thus it was not possible for the petitioner to make any submission as to whether the plan was in conformity with the bye-laws or Regulations of the local authority or any statutory authority or not. Moreover, the petitioner's application for supply of the copy of map dated 3.4.1995 was opposed by the landlord by filing objection dated 10.10.1995. The Prescribed Authority ordered that the same would be considered at the time of hearing while giving the judgment but the same has not been considered. Thus the competitor has been deprived of the opportunity to challenge the map on the ground mentioned in Rule 17(1)(iii) of the Rules framed under the Act.
(2.) Reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon the case in Liaq Ahmad and others v. Habeebur Rahman, 2000 5 SCC 708 wherein the Apex Court has held that the rent control legislation have been acknowledge to be piece of social legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the landlord and requirements of tenants. Such legislation prevent the landlords from taking the extreme step of evicting the tenant merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. It was further held that where the Rent Act offer a real and sanctified protection to the tenant the same should not be nullified by giving a hyper technical or liberal construction to the language of the statute, which instead of promoting the objections of the Act may result in its frustration. The Rent Act have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenant. It was further held that it should be kept in mind that the Rent Act is undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants for whose benefit they were essentially passed.
(3.) It is argued that in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India it is submitted that the landlord while representing before the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority that he has submitted plan in conformity with the bye-laws and regulation of the local authority and the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority was under obligation to record a finding to this effect which is lacking in the present case. Rather both the authorities presumed that the plan submitted by the landlord to the Kanpur Development Authority would be deemed to have been passed after the expiry of 90 days and on finding was recorded that the plan was in conformity of bye-laws and Regulations of the local authority. The entire building is a huge one occupied by various- tenants and as such condition of one part alone will not meet the requirement and entire building cannot be demolished under the garb of section 21(1)(b) of the Act. It is further argued that there are many other tenants in the premises owned by the landlord. One of the tenant Smt. Meera Tandon also filed a writ petition No. 31450 of 2001 Smt. Meera Tandon v. Shoe Shankar Lal Gupta and others. On the undertaking given on behalf of the landlord the ejectment of Smt. Meera Tandon has not been made till now. In the order dated 3.9.2001, this Court observed that there was five tenants. The landlord filed application under section 21(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction of the building. The application has been filed against 5 tenants. These applications ought to have been decided together but they are being separately decided. The case of Smt. Meera Tandon was decided separately and other cases including present case of the petitioner was pending. In this view of the case, this Court observed that it would be appropriate to consider the writ petition of Smt. Meera Tandon after all the cases are decided in as much as on behalf of the landlord it was admitted that unless all the applicants are evicted, the building cannot be demolished. In view of the admission made on behalf of the landlord in the writ petition of Smt. Meera Tandon, the demolition of the building is not possible unless other pending cases are decided in favour of the landlord. Thus under the circumstances, if demolition is not possible, the proceedings for eviction should not be allowed to be carried on.;