Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Varanasi in Rent Appeal No. 10 of 1990, Pradeep Kumar Gupta and others v. Smt. Kamla Devi, by which the appeal of the contesting respondents was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1987 passed by the Prescribed Authority/lllrd Civil Judge, Varanasi in P.A. Case No. 88 of 1990 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises in question within the period of two months from the date of the judgment. The brief facts of the case are that Suit No. 311 of 1983 for eviction of tenant Smt. Kamla Devi was filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Varanasi which was dismissed on 26.9.1986. The revision filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 21.7.1987. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that when the contesting respondents could not get possession over the shop in question they filed a joint application in the year 1985 for release under Sections 21 (1)(a) and 21(1)(b) before the Prescribed Authority for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute situated in premises No. D-39/50-A which is alleged to have been purchased by them on 10.4.1982 on the ground that it was in dilapidated condition and required reconstruction after demolition. It is stated that ground of personal need was pleaded to deprive the petitioner from his right of re-entry and that till date the shop has not fallen down as such the ground that building is in such condition is belied. It is argued that it has been found as a matter of fact by the Court that property in question was not in a dilapidated conditions and that the contesting respondents have no bona fide need for the shop in dispute.
(3.) IT is further submitted by him that compliance of Rule 17 of the UP. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction), Rules 1973 is mandatory and before passing order under Section 21 (1) (b), Prescribed Authority is to satisfy itself that the building requires demolition and that the landlord has sufficient financial means to construct the building in question according to the sanctioned building plan; but in the present case there has been no notice or report of Nagar Nigam, Varanasi in respect of the condition of the building. The application for appointment of commission for local inspection being paper No. 210-C under Rule 27 framed under the Rules moved at a very belated stage, was rejected by the Court; that estimate of expenditure etc. was also not filed in the Court though it is averred that amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards expenditure has been managed by the landlord, and that even the plan for new construction as required under Rule 17 (3) was not filed. It is then submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the contesting respondents in support of their case had not filed any documentary evidence, whereas Smt. Kamla Devi, the tenant had specifically stated that landlord/ respondents are running their business at Kolkata whereas the shop in dispute is situated in Varanasi on main road between Ramapura to Lauhrabeer. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner upon paragraph 8 of the objection wherein it has been stated by Smt. Kamla Devi that the contesting landlord/ respondents have purchased building No. D-39/2 and D-39/50. It is argued that in Kolkata also the respondents have business of Dal Mill and there are several buildings of the contesting respondents which fetch large amount of rent and details of those are given.;