M.P.Singh - (1.) PETITIONERS were the tanants. Opposite parties nos. 3 to 5, who are the landlords, filed an application for release under section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition, it needed demolition and reconstruction. PETITIONERS filed an objection denying the case of the landlords.
(2.) LANDLORDS filed the application for release on the ground that the disputed shop was about hundred years old and was in a dilapidated condition, two rear portions have already fallen down and front portion was also likely to fall down. The shop was irreparable. The demolition and reconstruction was a must. The plan has also been sanctioned by the Nagar Palika. They wanted to demolish the shop after it was released and reconstruct new shops to augment their income as well. The prescribed authority allowed the application for release against which the petitioners filed an appeal. It was dismissed on 15-1-1993. This writ petition is directed against the said order. A careful perusal of the release application shows that it was an application under section 21 (1) (b) and not under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The ingredients of this sub-section have not at all been pleaded. Merely mentioning the provision of section 21 (1) (a) in the application will not change its nature.
(3.) THE appellate authority made a spot inspection on 12-1-93. THE inspection note (paper No. 42/1-A) forms part of the record. Petitioners' case was that the respondents are not the landlords of the shops. The application for release was not maintainable at their instance. The landlords came forward with the case that a family partition had already taken place, as a result thereof the disputed shops fell in their share and they are owner and landlords;