- (1.) M. P. Mehrotra, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India arises out of the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The facts, in brief, are these. The petitioners applied for the release of the shop in dispute which is in the tenancy of the respondent No. 2 Alim Uddin. It seems that Mohammad Raza, father of the respondent No. 2, was the original tenant and the application for the release was moved against him. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 11. 9. 1978, a certified copy of which is Enclosure 4 to the petition. There after, an appeal was filed by the tenant against the said order and same was allowed by the appellate Court by its judgment dated 25. 5. 1980, a certified copy of which is Enclosure 5 to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri U. K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners' and in opposition, Sri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has made his submissions. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on the findings recorded by both the Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court, it was clear that the entire building owned by the petitioner No. 1 Phul Chand was dilapidated and required reconstruction and even if the portion of the shop in question was not dilapidated, the same would not entitle it to defeat the release application of the landlords. On the other hand, Sri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant contended that in as much as the shop in dispute had been found to be in good condition, the release application in respect of the shop is bound to fail. He further contended that the Prescribed Authority and the appellate Court erred in placing reliance on the inspection note of the Prescribed Authority. It was contended that such inspection note could only be utilised as an aid but could not be treated as a substitute for substantive evidence led in the case. The learned counsel further contended that from the evidence and material on record, the Courts below were not justified in holding that the building was in a dilapidated condition or required demolition. Lastly, it was contended that the house was jointly owned and the petitioner No. 1 alone was not its owner and landlord and the release application at his instance without joining the other co-owners was not maintainable. Sri Bhargava cited the following cases in support of his contention:- 1. 1982 Allahabad Rent Cases 124 (Ram Autar v. find Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge and others ).
(2.) 1982 Allahabad Rent Cases 171 (Smt. Mula v. Babu Ram and others ). Llahabad Rent Cases 149 (Om Prakash Saraswat v. III Addl. District Judge and others ). Llahabad Rent Cases 240 (Pyare Lal v. IV Addl. District Judge and others ).
(3.) 1980 Allahabad Rent Cases 381 (Devi Charan v. III Addl. District Judge and others ). . L. J. 710 (Gaya Lal v. District Judge ).;