M.P.Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the tenant of shop no. 174, Sarafa Bazar, Jhansi.
(2.) THE opposite party no. 1 filed an application for release under section 21 (l)'(b) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition and it required demolition and new construction. THE building is said to have been constructed about hundred years back. It was built of Kakaiya bricks. Before filing of the present release application the tenant himself had moved an application under section 28 of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and needed repairs. THE requirement of Rule 17 have also been complied with by the landlord. The said application was contested by the petitioner stating that the shop was not in a dilapidated condition. There is no apprehension of its falling down. He is carrying on his business. The application is not bonafide. In case of release, greater hardship would be caused to this petitioner. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the said application holding that the building was not in a dilapidated condition but the Appellate Authority took a contrary view and allowed the appeal of the landlord against which the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) HEARD Sri S. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the appeal could not have been allowed inasmuch as Rule 17 has not been complied with. According to him the plan which has been submitted by the landlord had not been sanctioned by the local authority.;