- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of caveator respondent No. 3 have been heard on this petition whereby order of release under Section 21 (l) (b) of the Act 13 of 1972 passed by the prescribed authority and confirmed by the appellate autho rity, is sought to be quashed.
(2.) RELEASE was sought by the landlord of a part of the building in the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that the same is in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction. This was opposed by the petitioner who pleaded that the building was sound and sturdy. The prescribed authority on a consideration of the evidence led by the parties by means of affidavits, rival reports of the architects, and the photographs of the building came to the conclusion that the building is dilapidated requiring demolition and reconstruction. There has been compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules under the Act and allowed the release. The appellate court besides considering the above evidence also inspected the building itself and affirmed the said conclusions.
(3.) THE plea that the impugned order of the appellate court is unsustain able in law because no memo was prepared by the presiding Judge, is untenable because he did prepare an inspection report. It is not the intention of sub-rule (4) of Rule 27 of the Rules framed under Act 13 of 172 that the note shall be recorded on the spot itself, of course, it is to be prepared and placed on record at the earliest opportunity preferably by the next day if he happened to be a working day. THEre is nothing in this case to show that the preparation of note was unduly delayed. Equally untenable is the conten tion that the report or note of inspection could not be relied as the presiding Judge did not in the same indicate the building to be dilapidated. In fact, such observations which may conclude the issue yet to be heard, is to be avoided while making an inspection note, because of the legal position that the issue or the case has to be decided on the picture emerging from a consi deration of the entire evidence, and not inspection note alone. It has been vehementally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prescribed authority not having itself scrutinized the plan for construction with reference to the bye-laws, the finding regarding com pliance of this part of Rule 17 is unsustainable. Reliance is placed on Binda Prasad v. IIIrd A. D. J. Faizabad and others, 1984 (2) Alld Rent Cases 306. The said authority, however, does not say that the prescribed authority has to act as an expert in the field of architecture and the building bye- laws. It is the duty of the party assailing the plan to point out the precise bye-law which was flouted by the plan, and then of course, the prescribed authority would be duty bound to examine and come to the conclusion whether or not it conforms to the said provision. In the absence of any such specific assertion on the part of the petitioner, and categorical state ment from the side of the respondent that the plan conformed to the bye-laws, the prescribed authority did not act illegally in accepting the plan as com plying Rule 17. Significantly before this court also, the petitioner has not pointed out in what manner the plan relied upon by the petitioner, is hit by the bye-laws of the concerned local authority.;