V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri A.N. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
(2.) The landlord filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the shop in the tenancy of petitioner was in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application. The decision of Prescribed Authority had been reversed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority by means of this petition.
(3.) Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of the amendment made in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by which the provisions of sub-section 2 (bb) was inserted in Section 2 of the Act, the provisions of the act would apply to the building in dispute and the release application was liable to be rejected. He has further urged that in view of Rule 17 of the Rules it has nowhere been stated by the landlord that the map was prepared in accordance with the bye laws of the Competent Authority. In the absence of specific statement that the map conformed with the bye laws of the authority, the release application was liable to be rejected. It was lastly urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the report submitted by the Engineer of the petitioner had wrongly been discarded by the Appellate Authority merely on the ground that it mentioned wrong number of shop in dispute. Sri A.N. Sinha, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal and Co. and another reported in 2001 SCFBRC 489 . He has also relied on the findings of the Appellate Court.;