Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) IN both these petitions, the petitioners have challenged a common order dated 26 -5 -1986 by which the application of the landlord under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for the release of the accommodation has been allowed. Both the disputed shops which are in the same building owned by respondents 3 to 6 are in the tenancy of Hira Lal and Mool Chand, sons of Devi Lal. It was alleged that the building in question was about 100 years old and is in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction.
(2.) THE tenants denied the condition of the building to be in such bad shape as to be in imminent danger of collapse and which may require demolition and reconstruction. It was further objected that the compliance of the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act has not been done. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the disputed property was very old and in dilapidated condition and it may fall at any time. Hence it was necessary to demolish the same and reconstruct. The landlord has sufficient means to reconstruct and they have an approved plan for the reconstruction. These findings of fact have also been re -affirmed in appeal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the courts below erred in holding that there was compliance of Rule 17. The map submitted by the landlord for sanction by the local authority was not in conformity with the Rules and Regulations and the proper estimates were also not submitted as also the landlord does not have the financial capacity to make the constructions. It was also contested that as the sale deeds which conferred title to the landlords were not executed in accordance with law, the present proceedings by the respondents are without jurisdiction. Lastly it was argued that the house was not in dilapidated condition.;