Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.N. Agarwal learned Counsel for the petitioner who has filed his vakalatnama today and Sri A.K. Gupta learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of proceedings for demolition and reconstruction under section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 initiated by landlord -respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Suresh Chandra and Smt. Basanti Devi. Release application was registered as Case No. 21 of 1985 and was allowed by prescribed authority Chandausi, District Moradabad on 22.2.1987. Against the said judgment and order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner being Rent Appeal No. 622 of 1987. Ist Additional District Judge, Moradabad through judgment and order dated 7.8.1991, dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition.
(2.) PROPERTY in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 20/ - per month. Both the Courts below found that the shop in dispute was in a dilapidated condition. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the adjoining shops belonging to the landlords were got vacated by them either under section 21(1)(a) or under section 21(1)(b) of the Act but neither the landlords utilized those shops which were released for their bona fide need nor the shop which were released for demolition and reconstruction under section 22(1)(b) of the Act were newly constructed by them. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after getting possession of the shop in dispute landlord will either not demolish the same or even if he demolishes the same he will not reconstruct the new shop. All these aspects may be taken clear of through appropriate order.
(3.) IN respect of condition of the building in dispute, I do not find least error in the impugned judgments.;