R.B.Mehrotra - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order of the Prescribed authority (Second Additional Civil Judge; Dehradun, dated 6th February J987 passed in Misc. Suit No- 98 of 1984, Anand Prakash v. Om Prakash Kashyap allowing the application of the respondent landlord under section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also the order of the Additional District Judge, Dehradun, rejecting the petitioner's Rent Control Appeal No. 24 of 1987, Om Prakash Kashyap v. Anand Prakash, vide its judgment dated 6th December 1988 affirming the order of the prescribed authority dated 6th February 1987.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at the admission stage itself. The matter is being disposed of finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties Learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions seeking quashing of the impugned orders. (1) that the respondent landlord has himself contributed to the deterioration of the disputed building resulting in making the building dilapidated by demolishing the building himself. As such in the present case the respondent landlord was not entitled to get relief under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ram Kumar v. Third Additional District Judge Faizabad, 1986 (2) ARC 75. (2) that there is no finding recorded by the courts below for compliance of Rule 17 (ii) of the rules framed under the Act. The compliance of rule 17 (it) was a mandatory requirement, and the courts below has committed jurisdictional error is allowing the application of the respondent landlord under section 21 (1; (b) of the Act without recording any finding regarding compliance of rule 17 (ii) despite the fact that the said point was specifically raised by the petitioner in the courts below. The petitioner's counsel relief on a decision of this Court in Gaya Prasad v. Fourth Additional District Judge, Aligarh, 1982 (1) ARC 49. (3) that the courts below have also not cared to look into She compliance of rule 17 (iv) of the Rules framed under the Act. Elaborating the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners, counsel Sri Rajesh Tandon has submitted that the petitioner's case through out was that immediately after purchasing the property in dispute the respondent landlord started forcibly demolishing the building in dispute with the object of getting the building vacated from the petitioner tenant. Compelled by the aforesaid illegal activities of the respondent landlord, the petitioner filed Suit no 313 of 1983, Om Prakash v Prem Nath Sharma in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Dehradun, and obtained injunction against the respondent from demolishing the premises in diipute. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the said suit of injunction has been finally decreed against the respondent landlord who has been restrained from demolishing the building in dispute. The submission is that since the respondent landlord himself has contributed to a situation by which the building has reached in a dilapidated condition, requiring demolition, the respondent landlord's application for getting the building released under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act should not be allowed. The petitioner's counsel relied upon a decision of this court in Ram Kumar's case (supra) wherein it has been laid down that if the respondent landlord has himself contributed to a situation by which the building has reached in a dilapidated condition, the application of the respondent landlord shall not be allowed under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the courts below just failed to consider this aspect of the matter while allowing the respondent landlord application under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act and did not consider the facts relating to the contribution of the respondent landlord in making the building dilapidated and further pointed out that this point was specifically raised in the courts below but despite it, they have not given any finding on the said aspect of the matter.
(3.) SRI l. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the respondent, In reply to the aforesaid submission, stated that it is clear from the inspection note of the Prescribed authority and the findings recorded by the two courts below show that the condition of the building was such, which can not be held to be contributed by the respondent landlord The inspection note gives details of the condition of the building it is stated there that the disputed property is in dilapidatad condition, the wooden pillers have been used to give to the support wooden girder of the roof due to which three has been hole in the roof The prescribed authority in his inspection note, found that the building is not only in a dilapidated condition but is in a dangerlous condition and any accident can occur in the said building at any time. The first floor of the building which was in occupation of the respondent landlord is vacant. There are wide cracks in the wall and the wall can fall down at any time. The roof is bent so much, that it can fall down at any time if the water collects there. The wooden piller have completely decayed. The inspection note clearly shows that the building is in a condition which is in capable of repairs. On the basis of evidence of the parties the prescribed authority recorded a categorical finding that most of the wooden girders have been eaten by white ant. The said building is hundred years old and is in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition. The said finding has been affirmed by the first appellate authority. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that such a situation cannot be created by any action of the respondent landlord. In view 33-Rep.-1991 of the aforesaid finding the contention 5s that the court below were not required to give separate finding as to whether the respondent landlord has contributed anything in making the building dilapidated. The inspection note as well as the finding of the prescribed authority clearly show that the condition of the building was such that it cannot be held to be due to any act of the respondent landlord, by any strech of argument. I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below regarding the diapidated condition of the buiding and in view of the inspection note of the prescribed authority there is no scope for holding that the condition of the said building was due to any contribution of the respondent-landlord as such it was not necessary for the courts below to have decided the said question separately. The contention of the petitioner has been impliedly rejected by the courts below by recording a finding that the building is not only in a dilapidated condition but in a dangerous condition and can fall down at any time, causing incident which may result in human injury. In this view of the matter I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.;