Parmeshwar Dayal, J. - (1.) THIS writ Petition was originally filed by Ram Gopal who died during the pendency of writ petition and his son Ram Kumar was substituted in his place. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders contained in Annexures 2 and 4.
(2.) THE dispute relates to house No. 722, situate in Rakabganj, Faizabad. The opposite party No. 3 Gopal Krishan has been the landlord of the house and Ram Gopal has teen the tenant of its ground floor for a number of years. Gopal Krishna resided in the adjacent house No. 722. He purchased the disputed house No. 722 in the year 1970. In the first floor of this house there was an office of Jan Sangh. In June, 1971, the first floor of the disputed house was vacated and landlord entered into occupation of the same. The landlord then moved an application under Section 21(1)(b) of Act 13 of 1972 for possession of the disputed house on the grounds that it was in a dilapidated condition and it required demolition and reconstruction. The tenant Ram Gopal, now Ram Kumar, claimed that the landlord after entering into possession of the first floor damaged the roofs etc. of the first floor with an intention of evicting him. He filed a Civil Suit No. 317 of 1971 in which suit, temporary injunction was granted in his favour and the landlord was restrained from further damaging the condition of the first floor of the disputed house. The landlord filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1975 which was dismissed. The judgment is contained in Annexure -1. In that suit, the tenant Ram Gopal was permitted to make necessary constructions and the petitioner claimed that he carried out the repairs and now the disputed house has not been in a dilapidated condition. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, vide order contained in Annexure -2, against which order the tenant Ram Gopal filed Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1979 which was dismissed on 12 -11 -1982. The application of the landlord was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on a previous occasion also and on appeal the case was remanded whereafter the impugned orders were passed.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner has been that during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1979, he moved an application for local inspection and the Presiding Officer of that appellate Court made a local inspection and endorsed his local inspection note on 21.4.1982, as contained in Annexure -3, whereby he found that the condition of the disputed premises was not dilapidated. He further claimed that after that the Presiding Officer was transferred. The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1979 was given by another Presiding Officer and till then the landlord tried to delay the disposal. He has assailed these orders contained in Annexures -2 and 4 on the ground that there has been a distinction between a dilapidated building and a damaged building and that it was the act of the landlord that the building became damaged since the landlord wanted to evict him.;