- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19-10-1995 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing appeal against the order of Prescribed Authority and releasing the disputed premises in favour of landlord-respondent No. 3, under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "the Act" ).
(2.) IT is admitted that Thakur Ram Janki Mandir, Bahelia Tola, Mangal Bazar, Ward No. 3, Purani Basti, respondent No. 3 is the landlord of the premises in ques tion situate in Mohalla Mangal Bazar, Tappa Haveli, Pargana and District Basti. The petitioner has taken the shop on rent. Respondent No. 3 filed an application in the year 1983 under Section 21 (1) (b) of the act on the allegation that the premises in question was constructed more than 50 years ago. IT is in a dilapidated condition. The walls of the building have developed cracks. ITs ceiling has also given way at several places. IT was alleged that the map for reconstruction was sub mitted to the Municipal Board and it has been sanctioned. Respondent No. 3 has financial capacity to reconstruct the shop. This application was opposed by the petitioner. It was denied that the dis puted shop was in a dilapidated condition. It was further alleged that the landlord has not complied with the requirements as given under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. The Prescribed Authority inspected the premises in question on 13-9-1984 and 3rd November, 1989. Respondent No. 3 also filed affidavit in support of its averment that the disputed shop was in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner filed counter affidavit. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application by order dated 3-11-89. The Prescribed Authority took the view that necessary repairs can be made and respondent No. 3 has not given the estimate of demolition and further has not shown its financial capacity. The application was accordingly rejected.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an appeal. The appellate authority has reversed the findings recorded by the prescribed Authority vide its order dated 19-10-1995 and he allowed the appeal and released the disputed premises in favour of respondent No. 3. The Petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition. The appellate authority, during the pendency of appeal, himself inspected the premises and after making local inspection and considering the other material evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the disputed premises was in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. This finding is based on his inspection note as well as the affidavit filed by the parties and the report of the Prescribed Authority dated 13-9-1984 and 3-11-1989. This finding does not suffer from any error of law.;