- (1.) Sri R.S. Tripathi has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1/1 and 1/2. He submitted that he was allowed some time to file objection to the report submitted by Prescribed Authority pursuant to this Court's order dated 24.9.2008. The relevant extract of the report has been quoted by this Court in its order dated 25.8.2010 and it reads as under: I have perused the said report in which it has been stated that on 5.11.2008 at about 4. p.m. the prescribed authority had visited on the spot in question in the presence of the Counsel for the plaintiff Kaleem Ullah Khan Advocate and from the side of the respondent his wife Shanti Devi alongwith her Advocate Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla and prepared a map of the site in question and also taken photographs which is a part of the record. Further in his report it is mentioned that house in question has been demarcated by the parties and the portion of the house which is shown as A, B, F, G, A has completely demolished and the debris is lying. The wall of the house which is shown as C, D, E, F, C in the map are dilapidated condition over which tin shed is there in which the wife of the defendant Smt. Shanti Devi was found living with his disabled son. Time was granted to respondent-tenant to file objection. Sri R.S. Tripathi, learned Counsel was appearing since beginning for respondent No. 1 Ram Nath who is said to have died on 11.7.2009 and thereafter his legal heirs have been substituted by this Court vide order dated 24.2.2011. It is not the case of contesting respondent that in given time, he moved an application for supply of copy of the order. No objection has been filed so far. Even the power filed today shows that it was accepted by learned Counsel on 30.9.2011 but since thereafter no efforts have been made to file objection to the aforesaid report submitted by Prescribed Authority in any manner. This Court is not satisfied with the bona fide of respondents in seeking adjournment in this case which is pending for the last 21 years. Hence, I proceed to decide the matter.
(2.) An application was filed by landlord for release of premises in question namely House No. 65/4, Begum Ward Shahar, Pratapgarh under section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) which was allowed by Prescribed Authority by order dated 29.4.1986 directing the opposite party-tenant to vacate premises in question within one month so that the landlord may proceed for its demolition and reconstruction. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.1986 opposite party-tenant filed Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of 1986 which was allowed by order dated 28.9.1989. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that since the building in question is liable of repair therefore cannot be said to be dilapidated. Since this matter was filed in 1990 and it came up after about 18 years, this Court on 24.9.2008 observed that the spot situation be obtained by directing Prescribed Authority to inspect the site, take photographs and submit a report to the Court regarding present status of house in question. It is pursuant to this order, the Prescribed Authority has submitted report having visited premises on 5.1.2009 in the presence of Counsels for parties, namely, Sri Kaleem Ullah Khan for plaintiff and Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla for respondents. Report also shows that Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of original-tenant was also present and Sri Dinesh Kumar Shukla, her Counsel accompanied her. A map was also prepared. Photographs were also taken which are part of record. It is evident therefrom that substantial portion of the house shown as A, B, F, G, A has completely demolished and the wall of the house which is shown as C, D, E, F, C in the map is in dilapidated condition where tin shed is there. There is an application No. 1080 of 2003 filed by Sri Ram Nath through his Counsel Sri R.S. Tripathi seeking permission of this Court to repair building in question. Therein also in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 it has been stated that the building requires repair else the roof will fall down. The affidavit accompanying the said application has been sworn by Smt. Shanti Devi, respondent No. 1/1. From the above application it is established that building in question was in dilapidated condition. The words "dilapidated condition" does not mean that the building must have ruined but it means that the condition of building is such that unless substantial work is done, it is likely to fall down on its own and same thing has happened partially as is evident from report of Prescribed Authority dated 7.11.2008. In the circumstances, judgment of appellate order cannot sustain. The Appellate Court has committed patent error in holding that building in question was not in dilapidated condition. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Appellate order dated 28.9.1989 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) is hereby quashed.;