- (1.) This is a landlord's petition which is directed against an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge dated 24-8-1978 allowing an appeal filed by the tenant and rejecting the application for release filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act.
(2.) These are the facts: The Petitioner filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was a Kachcha construction and was in a delapidated condition required for being demolished and reconstructed. The application was contested by the tenant who is arrayed in the writ petition as a Respondent No. 2. The tenant asserted that the accommodation in dispute was not in a delapidated condition and was not required for demolition and reconstruction. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the landlord. The tenant appealed. The appellate court has allowed the appeal and rejected the application of the landlord on the ground that the building in question is not in a delapidated condition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the findings of the learned District Judge. He urged that the finding of the learned District Judge is vitiated by reason of the fact that he laboured under a misapprehension as regards the true import of the word "delapidated". Another argument raised by counsel was that the learned District Judge has illegally refused to consider the reports of the experts examined on behalf of the Petitioner.;