S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's writ petition arising out of release proceedings initiated by him against tenants -respondents 3 to 10 under section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that tenanted accommodation in dispute was in dilapidated condition and required demolition and re -construction in the form of Rent Case No. 56 of 1985 before Prescribed Authority/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The Presiding Officer of the Court of prescribed authority himself inspected the premises on 26.4.19(sic), copy of inspection note is Annexure -8 to the writ petition. Accommodation in dispute consists of three kotharies rent of which is Rs. 10/ - per month. Tenants are residing in the said accommodation and also doing some business therefrom. Prescribed authority on the basis of evidence brought on record and on the basis of his inspection found the building in dispute to be in dilapidated condition. Release application was therefore allowed on 25.5.1987. Against the said judgment and order tenants filed Rent Appeal No. 123 of 1987. IVth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 2.11.1988 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and remanded the matter to the prescribed authority for reconsideration. Landlord has challenged the said judgment and order of the Appellate Court through this writ petition. Appellate Court held that the prescribed authority had no understood the scope and meaning of the expression dilapidated condition. According to the Appellate Court the said words mean "in a state of decay or partial ruin or dis -repair."
(2.) BOTH the parties had filed their expert reports and each expert had fully supported the case of the party which engaged him. According to the report of the landlord's expert building it dispute was in dilapidated condition while according to the tenant's expert it was quite sound. In view of these conflicting reports inspection note of the presiding officer of the prescribed authority assumed great importance. The prescribed authority in it's inspection note mentioned that the roof of the accommodation in dispute was of wooden planks and first floor accommodation just above the accommodation in dispute had fallen down and the portion of the same building just adjacent to the accommodation in dispute had completely fallen down. It was also mentioned in the report that the accommodation in dispute appeared to be very old. The Appellate Court remanded the matter on the following grounds: In view of the disparity between the expert's reports and the inspection note of the prescribed authority it cannot be said that there was no evidence on the record for a finding that the disputed accommodation was in dilapidated condition as the prescribed authority has made reference in his report that the entire first floor accommodation and the accommodation adjacent to the tenanted premises has crumbled down. The prescribed authority has not recorded a finding whether the entire building excluding the tenanted accommodation is in dilapidated condition. No finding has been given by the prescribed authority whether the entire building cannot be constructed without demolishing the building in the tenancy of the appellant. Thereafter, it was observed by Appellate Court that: - In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, the remand of this case to the prescribed authority has become necessary for recording a finding on the question whether the entire building is in dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction and the individual constructions cannot be carried out without demolished the tenanted accommodation.
(3.) APPELLATE Court committed an error of law in directing the prescribed authority to decide as to whether entire building of which tenanted accommodation is a part was in dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. The only point to be decided in the case was the condition of the accommodation in dispute. Tenant has got no concern with the demolition and construction of the building which is not in his tenancy occupation. Even if the rest portion of the building i.e. other than the tenanted accommodation is not proposed to be reconstructed by the landlord, it will not have any bearing upon the case. Landlord cannot be compelled to reconstruct that part of the building which is not in tenancy occupation of the opposite party tenant.;