S.C.Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition arising from proceedings for release under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. p. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) THE case of opposite parties 3 and 4 was that the premises in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. In support of the plea that the property was in a dilapidated condition the opposite parties apart from filing affidavit, also placed on record the report of Sri Nairn Khan, Civil Engineer. A report was also obtained from an Advocate Commissioner. THE two authorities below apart from relying on these two reports have also relied upon the petitioner's own admission made in the proceedings instituted against him by the transferor of the opposite parties. On behalf of the petitioner tenant no expert evidence was adduced to rebut the evidence furnished through the report of Sri Nairn Khan and also through the report of the Advocate Commissioner. In the circumstances, the finding of fact recorded on the question of dilapidated nature of the building cannot be said to suffer from manifest error. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the application was not maintainable as the period of 3 years had not expired from the date of purchase of the property by the opposite parties. The learned counsel placed reliance upon the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21. This proviso does not apply to an application moved under clause (b) but applies only when release is sought on the ground of personal requirement under clause (a). The reliance on the proviso is, therefore, misconceived. It was next argued by the learned counsel that no assessment had been made of comparative hardships in terms of the last proviso to clause (1) of Section 21. This proviso reads as follows :- "Provided also that the Prescribed Authority shall, except in cases provided for in the Explanation, take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application and for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as may be prescribed." Prior to the last proviso there are 3 more provisos and all the three provisos are in respect of an application moved under clause (a). The use of word 'also' in the last proviso indicates that this proviso also refers to an application under clause (a) and not to an application made under clause (b). In the circumstances, the two authorities below were not required to make an assessment of comparative hardship to the parties.
(3.) THE last argument of the learned counsel was that no estimate had been furnished on behalf of the landlords as was required to be done under Rule 17. An averment in this behalf was made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. THE averments made in para 4 of the writ petition have been replied to through paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that estimate prepared by Sri Nairn Khan had been placed on record which indicated that cost would come to Rs. 13,362.38. In respect of financial capacity of the landlords also it has been stated in the counter affidavit, evidence had been placed on record. It has further been stated that this question was not raised by the petitioner either before the Prescribed Authority or before the appellate authority. In the circumstances, the argument raised regarding violation of Rule 17 is not substantiated and is also misconceived. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby rejected. However, the eviction order shall not be executed for a period of 4 months. Petition rejected.;