- (1.) ABDUL Rahim Khan filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the "Act") for release of the house in dispute against Km. Aysha Sultan and Smt. Jahan Ara Malik. A written statement was filed by Smt. Malika Jahan Ara Begum denying and disputing the contentions and averments made by the respondents in the release application. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 24.09.1985 dismissed the release application filed under section 21(1)(a) of the Act after recording a finding that the building is not in a dilapidated condition. Thereafter, an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act was filed by the landlord, which too was dismissed by order dated 25.05.1986. Against the said order, Writ Petition No. 13840 of 1986 was filed by the respondents-landlord. The said writ petition was decided by order dated 10.05.2000 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court by order dated 31.07.2010 allowed the Appeal No. 110 of 1985 and directed the petitioner to vacate the house in dispute within three months. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.07.2010, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At this juncture in order to adjudicate the controversy involved in the matter, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 24(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short the "Act"), which runs as follows:- "Where the landlord after obtaining a release order under Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 21 demolishes a building and constructs a new building or buildings on its site, then the District Magistrate may. on an application being made in that behalf by the original tenant within such time as may be described, allot to him the new building or such one of them as the District Magistrate after considering his requirements thinks fit, and thereupon that tenant shall be liable to pay as rent for such building an amount equivalent to one per cent per month of the cost of construction thereof (including the cost of demolition of the old building but not including the value of the land) and the building shall, subject to the tenant's liability to pay rent as aforesaid, be subject to the provisions of this Act, and where the tenant makes no such application or refuses or fails to take that building on lease within the time allowed by the District Magistrate, or subsequently ceases to occupy it or otherwise vacates it, that building shall also be exempt from the operation of this Act for the period or the remaining period, as the case may be, specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 2." The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though admittedly the house in dispute is more than 125 years old but he claims right of re-admission as the lower Appellate Court has found that the house in dispute is in a dilapidated condition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent may be directed to construct the new building after demolition within a stipulated period of time and suitable portion may be allotted to him for his residential purpose. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decisions of this Court in the case of Riazur Rahman Khan and others Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Rampur and others, 2006(2) ARC, 434, Om Prakash Gupta Vs. IVth A.D.J. Kanpur Nagar and others, 2006(2) ARC 164 and Sunderlal Agarwal Dharmashala Trust Vs. District Judge thorugh the IInd A.D.J. Farrukhabad and another, 2009 (1) ARC 153, wherein a direction was given to the landlord to reconstruct the premises in dispute within a stipulated period of time and offer suitable portion to the tenant on the rent fixed in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Act.;