Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order passed on the application moved by opposite party No. 3 Shahabad Under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The opposite party No. 3, the landlord of the premises in question moved the above -mentioned application on the ground that the premises in question were in dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. It was also asserted by the landlord opposite party No. 3 that he has complied with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. The Prescribed Authority by means of its order dated 21.05.81 allowed the application of the landlord. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority the Petitioner went up in appeal. The appeal has also been dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated 19.09.83. The Petitioner has challenged the above two orders passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority.
(2.) THE courts below have recorded a finding that the premises in question are dilapidated. The main contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the estimate which is required to be prepared Under Rule 17(1)(ii) is not a proper estimate. The first ground of attack about the propriety of the estimate is that the person who has prepared the estimate had not inspected the site which according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would be evident from his statement. The second ground of attack is that the estimate does not include the estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition. It only contains the estimate of cost of new construction, therefore, the requirement of Rule 17(1)(ii) is not complied with. The counsel for the Petitioner has drawn my attention 10 Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the Petitioner. Annexure 2 is a true copy of the statement of Mohd. Shakeel who is employed in the PWD and has prepared the estimate. He has stated that he had taken measurements at the spot before preparing the estimate. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that according to his statement he has prepared only one or two estimates earlier and his age is only 25 years, therefore, he did not have sufficient experience for preparing the estimate. I find no force in this contention. It has not been prescribed under the rules that the estimate should be prepared by a person having any prescribed period of experience. In the cross -examination it has not been suggested to him that he was not qualified to prepare the estimate. My attention has been drawn to paragraph 8 of the statement wherein he has stated that he had taken measurements of outer walls and that he had not taken measurements inside the premises. On this basis it has been contended that since he had not taken measurements inside the premises, it was not possible to prepare a correct estimate. In my view, it is not necessary to even visit the spot for preparing a correct estimate. If measurements and requirements are made available to a qualified person, he can prepare the estimate of cost which is likely to be incurred in raising the new constructions. He has stated that he had taken the measurements of outer walls. That would certainly give an idea of the area in which the construction is to be raised. He has further stated that he has prepared the estimate according to PWD Rules. A true copy of the estimate given by Mohd. Shakeel has also been annexed as Annexure S1 to the supplementary affidavit. He has given the cost item -wise and it has not been challenged that the estimate and detailed in Annexure S -l is incorrect in any manner or that it is not in accordance with PWD Rule -; on the basis of which the estimate is said to have been prepared by Mohd. Shakeel. A general criticism made against the estimate, on the ground that the estimated cost of construction amounting to Rs. 12,000/ - and odd is too low, cannot be sustained without there being any specific challenge against the details given in the estimate. The estimate can also not be assailed on the ground that the person who has prepared the estimate has not charged any amount from the landlord for preparing the estimate. So far as the cost of 1 construction is concerned, it depends upon many factors, namely, the area to be built up, the quality of material to be used and the type of construction to be raised. Therefore, the estimate cannot be said to be improper on a general criticism that the cost estimated is too low. The landlord has also complied with the other requirements of Rule 17. The map submitted by him has been passed by the concerned authorities. He has also shown it to the satisfaction of the courts below that he has sufficient funds to raise the construction. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the cost of construction has considerably enhanced during the last few years, therefore, it may not be possible for the landlord to raise the construction at present. I do not think this plea can be sustained. The landlord had shown that he had a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - with him for construction. The money in the hands of the landlord might also have increased during all this period looking to the bank rate of interest. The other grounds of attack of the estimate are that it does not include the cost of demolition. Rule 17(1)(ii) provides that the estimate should include the cost of proposed demolition as well besides the cost of new construction. Annexure Sly to the supplementary affidavit filed by the Petitioner is the estimate and it does not contain any item for cost of demolition. 'In reply to this submission, counsel for opposite party No. 3 has drawn my attention to the Commissioner's report, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure C2 to the counter affidavit. A perusal of this report shows that most of the walls and structure has already fallen down and is lying in the shape of debris. The only structure to be demolished is mentioned as one small room without any roof. The walls of this room are in dilapidated condition. In view of the fact that there is hardly anything to be demolished except a few small and dilapidated walls, it will not entail any significant expenditure in demolishing those walls. The expenditure will be so low that its non -inclusion in the estimate will hardly make any difference. Such an omission, in the circumstance, when whole building has already fallen down but for a few walls of small room will not infringe the requirement of Rule 17(1)(ii) of the Rules except technically. The estimate in substance covers the expenditure to be incurred by opposite party No. 3. A technical non -compliance, in the circumstances, is all not come in the way of the Petitioner to reconstruct the building which is otherwise permitted under the Act. The purpose of Rule 17 of the Rules appears to be that frivolous applications Under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act may not be moved and the said provisions may not be misused by the landlords. The prescribed authority has to be satisfied about the four requirements provided Under Rule 17 of the Rules. Thus the satisfaction was to be in regard to the facts that the building requires demolition, a proper estimate of cost of demolition and reconstruction is prepared, the applicant, is possessed of financial capacity to carry out demolition and reconstruction and that the plan of the new construction is duly prepared conforming to the relevant bye -laws. If the above requirements are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the prescribed authority the bonfires of the landlord is established. In the present case all the requirements are fully complied with except the inclusion of cost of demolition in the estimate. As observed earlier, from the report of the Commissioner, it is quite evident that only dilapidated walls of a small room without roof are to be demolished. Obviously the cost of demolition will be negligible that it would cast no doubt over the bona -fides of the landlord to demolish the building and to raise a new construction. The counsel for the Petitioner has prayed that a time limit may be fixed within which the opposite party No. 3 be directed to complete the construction, otherwise the petitioner apprehends that the opposite party may not construct new building at all and may keep the premises lying as it is or may construct the building with inordinate delay. I find no basis for such apprehension in the mind of the Petitioner. Since the opposite party No. 3 has applied Under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and construction of new building, it is expected that he would raise the construction within a reasonable time,
(3.) IN the result, I find no merit in the petition and it is dismissed. There would be no order as to cost. At this stage the counsel for the Petitioner has prayed that his client may be permitted at least two months' time to make alternative arrangement so that he may shift somewhere else with his family. The counsel for opposite party opposes the prayer. However, in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I think it would be proper to allow one month's time to the Petitioner to make an alternative arrangement. Counsel for the Petitioner Sri S.K. Mehrotra states on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner shall hand over the possession of the premises in question on or before January 7, 1986. He has further given an undertaking that he shall not hand over the possession to anyone else except to opposite party No. 3.;