Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur allowing application of respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and appellate judgement dated 28.09.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Gorakhpur dismissing petitioners' appeal.
(2.) Sri Salil Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted only this much that in the impugned appellate judgment no time limit has been prescribed within which the landlord shall handover possession of reconstructed building, i.e., the accommodation at par with shop in dispute to petitioners and for this purpose relied on decisions of this Court in Om Prakash Singh v. IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar and others, 2008 (3) ARC 432 and Sunderlal Agarwal Dharmashala Trust v. District Judge through the IInd ADJ, Farrukhabad and another, 2009 (1) ARC 153 .
(3.) However, I find no force in the submission. A perusal of decision in Sunderlal Agarwal Dharmashala Trust (supra) para 12 show that the only lacuna mentioned therein is that no time limit was fixed for reconstruction after getting possession of building in dispute under Section 21(1)(b). In the present case time limit for reconstruction has been provided and petitioners have also given liberty to move application under Section 24(2) for allotment of newly constructed shop in his favour. Whether the petitioners would make such application cannot be assumed at this stage, therefore, the question of fixing any time limit for allotment/repossession to petitioner after new construction of shop in dispute cannot be determined at this stage. There is no flaw in the judgments impugned in this writ petition.;