Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri H.P.Pandey for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Govind Krishna for respondent No. 3 and Sri Jamil Ahmad for respondent No. 4.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 10th June, 2004 (Annex- ure 8 to the writ petition) passed by Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Azamgarh directing for demolition of House No. 96 and the order dated 12th July, 2005 passed by District Magistrate, Azamgarh (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) dismissing appeal of petitioner against aforesaid order of demolition. THE petitioner, claiming himself to be a tenant of the property in question, has said that he is living therein for the last more than 30 years. THE property in question is owned by respondent No. 4 Rafeeque Ahmad, Son of Waqeel Ahmad. THE portion wherein the petitioner is residing is a Kaccha house. It require certain repairs and therefore, petitioner sent notice under Section 28 of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as "1972 Act") requesting respondent No. 4 to get the accommodation repaired failing which petitioner himself would take steps for its repair and expenses shall be the ultimate liability of respondent No. 4. Having failed to receive any response, petitioner filed P.A. Case No. 03 of 1998 before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Azamgarh on 30th March, 1998 seeking a direction for repair of accommodation in question. The application was registered on 31st March, 1998 and notice was issued to the owner i.e. respondent No. 4. Since then the proceedings are pending. On 20th May, 1998, Court permitted the petitioner to cover up the accommodation in question using polythene sheets for safety purposes. Further, respondent No. 4 did not accept rent from April, 2004, as a result whereof petitioner deposited the rent for the period 21st April, 2004 upto March, 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Azamgarh. The Suit No. 03 of 1998, however, was dismissed for non prosecution on 13th December, 2002 whereafter a restoration application was filed, which is pending. The respondent No. 4 filed an application dated 26th May, 2004 before respondent No. 3 praying for inspection of the house (occupied by the petitioner) and permit him to demolish the same as it is a 'Kaccha house' and is in a dilapidated condition. A Junior Engineer was deputed for enquiry but without any spot inspection, he submitted a report verifying that condition of house is not fit for residential purpose and hence be demolished. The Executive Officer, consequently, passed order on 10th June, 2004 directing respondent No. 4 to demolish the accommodation in question within a week.
(3.) THE said order was passed without any notice to the petitioner, who was actually residing in the said rented house. As soon as he got the knowledge of this order, preferred appeal No. 35/38/2005 under Section 318 of Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "1959 Act") before the District Magistrate, the respondent No. 2, which was dismissed on 12th July, 2005. It is said that both the orders are illegal, in utter violation of principles of nature justice, having been passed without any spot inspection of the premises in question and in collusion to help and assist the landlord to get the accommodation in question vacated by evicting the petitioner in a circumventing manner. The writ petition has been mainly contested by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent No. 4 i.e. the owner of house in question has said that it is in ruinous condition, unfit for human dwelling and therefore, the two orders, impugned in this writ petition, warrants no interference. It is also said that the house in question has already fallen down, walls are in ruinous condition and as such there is no accommodation in existence. ;