A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner who is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute Under Section 21(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dismissing his appeal against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) THE appeal filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed on a preliminary ground without going into the merits of the controversies arising in the case. The learned Additional District Judge has held the Petitioner's application to be barred by the first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act on the ground that a period of three years had not elapsed since the date of the purchase of the building under tenancy by the Petitioner. The relevant facts are that the Petitioner who is admittedly the landlord and owner of the building under tenancy purchased the same from its previous owner under a registered sale deed dated October 24, 1977. The present application was filed Under Section 21(1) on March 20, 1978. The allegations on which the application was founded are these. The building under tenancy was purchased by the applicant on October 24, 1977 from its previous owner for his own use and occupation. The applicant had no other accommodation available anywhere except the building under tenancy of the Respondent No. 3. The condition of the building under tenancy was poor and dangerously dilapidated. Indeed the building has reached a stage of decay that unless reconstructed it will come down on its own. The applicant required the accommodation for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and if the building is not demolished it will not only come down any time but may also result in damage to neighboring properties. The necessity of the applicant for demolition and reconstruction of the house was such that it did not brook any further delay.
(3.) IT is alleged that the Petitioner also fulfilled the requirements of Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules framed under the Act.;