Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20th September, 1991 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the release application of the petitioners under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioners are tenants of one room accommodation each in Premises No. 79/68, Bans Mandi, Kanpur Nagar. Respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of this building. Respondent No. 3 moved an application for release of the accommodation in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioners under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that the accommodation in dispute is in highly dilapidated condition and it was required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. The petitioners contested the aforesaid application by filing written statement wherein it was contended that the accommodation in dispute was not in a dilapidated condition but required only minor repairs. The accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature and the landlord wanted to get the petitioners evicted with ulterior motive.
(2.) ONE of the main questions for consideration before the prescribed Authority was as to whether the accommodation in dispute was in a dilapidated condition which requires demolition and reconstruction. The landlord respondent filed a report of one J.P. Agarwal dated 18th October, 1983. He also filed an affidavit in support of this report. The report indicated that the house in question was about 70 years old. Walls were built with yellow third class under burnt bricks. Bricks were weathered and disintegrated and were falling one by one. Roofs were made with country tiles placed on bamboos supported by wooden Ballis. Tiles and bamboos were broken and wooden Ballis decayed, cracked snapped at many places. Roofs were sagged and rain water penetrates inside the rooms. Some roofs had collapsed and covered with Tirpal. The petitioners also filed a report of Maheshwar Prasad Mittal, Consulting Engineer and Licensed Surveyor. In his report he stated that the building is provided with Khaprail sloped roofing over 4" to 6" dia, ballis and bamboos framing and is in very good condition with periodical repairs. This report was supported with an affidavit. The Prescribed Authority found that there were conflicting reports and the opinion of the expert Engineers differed. He appointed an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection and submit report. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the disputed accommodation on 13th September, 1984 in presence of the parties. He found that the roof of the accommodation was that of Khaprail slope and supported with Ballis and bamboos. Ballis were bent and some of them had fallen down. In the wall some of the bricks were in broken condition. Some of the bricks were taken out from the walls, with the result the shape of the wall at some places was in the nature of Roshandan.
(3.) NONE of the parties filed any objection to the said report. The Prescribed Authority after considering conflicting expert reports submitted by both the parties appointed an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection. The Commissioner submitted report that the building was in a dilapidated condition but that required repairs. Accepting the view of the Commissioner that the building can be repaired, the prescribed Authority dismissed the application filed by the landlord -respondent by his order dated 7th February, 1987.;