Mohd. Asghar Khan, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 24th February, 1996 and 9th June, 1988 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar as well as by the Prescribed Authority. It appears that one Raja Ram was the tenant of a shop No. 69 situated in Bada Bazar, Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar. Smt. Gulab Devi and others, the landlords had moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the same was allowed. It appears that no appeal against that judgment and order was filed and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 obtained possession of that property. It was alleged in the application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 that the property in dispute is needed for Bhumesh Kumar, the son of Smt. Gulab Devi for settling him in some business. It has been pleaded that after release of that shop and after obtaining possession, the landlord did not settle her son Bhumesh Kumar. The landlord did not settle her son Bhumesh Kumar in that property and instead it has been given on rent to somebody else. The application under section 24(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was thus moved on the ground that after release of the property in question and after obtaining possession, the landlord did not utilise the same and no business has been carried out by Sri Bhumesh Kumar.
(2.) THE landlord filed objections and pleaded that the application under section 24(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been filed with absolutely on false allegations and after release of the disputed shop Sri Bhumesh Kumar S/o. Smt. Gulab Devi had been doing business in that shop. The petition was moved falsely. Learned Prescribed Authority allowed the application under section 24(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and held that the shop in question after being released has not been used by the landlord in the manner as has been shown in the application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It was, therefore, directed that possession of the aid shop be redelivered to the tenant within thirty days. The appeal against that judgment and order was filed being Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 1988 and Smt. Gulab Devi v. Rajaram and the same has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24th February, 1986. During the pendency of the appeal the disputed shop in question fell down. According to the tenant the said shop has been made to fall at the instance of the landlord intentionally and with a mala fide intention to harm the interest of the tenant and as against it, the contention of the landlord is that the shop in question was old and dilapidated one, and it has fallen suo motu after a decay. The learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, therefore, directed that the landlord shall get the disputed shop reconstructed on the old site and handover its possession to the tenant. For quashing that order the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have gone through the record and I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court thereby directing the reconstruction of the disputed shop and delivery of its possession is bad in law. Section 24(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides as under: 24. Option of re -entry by tenant. - -(1) Where a building is released in favour of the landlord and the tenant is evicted under section 21 or on appeal under section 22, and the landlord either puts or causes to be put into occupation thereof any person different from the person for whose occupation according to the landlord's representation, the building was required, or permits any such person to occupy it, or otherwise puts it to any use other than the one for which it was released or as the case may be, omits to occupy it within one month or such extended period as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow from the date of his obtaining possession or, in the case a building which was proposed to be occupied after some construction or reconstruction, from the date of completion thereof, or in the case of a building which was proposed to be demolished, omits to demolish it within two months or such extended period as the prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow from the date of his obtaining possession, then the prescribed authority or, as the case may be, the District Judge, may, on an application in that behalf within three months from the date of such act or omission, order the landlord to place the evicted tenant in occupation of the building on the original terms and conditions, and on such order being made, the landlord and any person who may be in occupation thereof shall give vacant possession of the building to the said tenant, failing which, the prescribed authority shall put him into possession and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary.
(3.) A bare reading of this section goes to show that it provides for re -entry by the tenants. In the case of a building which is proposed to be demolished, sub -section (1) lay down that if the landlord omits to demolish it within two months or such extended period as the Prescribed Authority may for sufficient cause allow from the date of his obtaining possession, then the Prescribed Authority or, as the case may be, the District Judge may on an application in that behalf within three months from the date of such act or omission, order the landlord to place the evicted tenant in occupation of the building on the original terms and conditions of the building. It is thus obvious that the power to put the tenant back in possession of his tenanted accommodation could be exercised only if the building had not been demolished and was available for occupation in its original condition. The power is not available when the building has been demolished.;