S.RAFAT ALAM,J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a tenant, has come up to this Court for quashing of the judgment/order dated 8.2.1985 and 28.1.86, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun (Respondent No. 1), allowing the appeal of the landlord (Respondent No. 2), under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and directing the tenant to vacate the premises in question within a month.
(2.) THE admitted facts of the case is that the tenant is occupying a portion of the first floor of House No. 43, Rajpur Road, Dehradun for a long time on a mearer monthly rent of Rs. 7 only for the accommodation consisting of 4 rooms, verandah, a wooden room, a courtyard, a latrine and bath room. The landlord is the owner of property No. 43, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. He filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act on 5.7.80 before the Prescribed Authority, Dehradun for evicting the tenant from the premises specified in the schedule of the application, and further for the release of the said premises in his favour on the ground, inter alia, that the building in occupation of the tenant is in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. It was further asserted in the said application that the landlord fulfils the conditions prescribed in Rule 17 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, framed under Section 41 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the landlord by its order dated 15.5.82. On appeal preferred by the landlord under Section 22 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun, reversed the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and held that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 8.2.1985, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 15.5.82. He further ordered the tenant to vacate the building in question within one month from the date of the judgment. Aggrieved tenant rushed to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4523 of 1985 for quashing of the judgment of the Appellate Authority. This Court by its judgment/order dated 28.2.1985 (Annexure 11 to the petition), dismissed the writ petition in limine at the stage of admission itself. However, while dismissing the writ petition this Court was of the view that the Appellate Court has not made any discussion on the evidence filed by the tenant and also did not record its finding that the proposed construction cannot be under taken unless the tenant occupying the ground floor is evicted. Therefore, liberty was given to the tenant to move an application to this effect before the learned Additional District Judge, who was directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the landlord moved an application on 14-3-85 before the learned Additional District Judge in Rent Control Appeal No. 140 of 1982. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge after necessary inspection of the building in question in the presence of the parties, after hearing them passed the impugned order dated 28-1-86 rejecting the application for review of his earlier judgment dated 8.2.1985.;