SUDHIR NARAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.8.1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 30.1.1996 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 purchased House 399, Ambala Road, Saharanpur from Krishna Kumar Khemka through registered sale deed dated 14.9.1994. There are seven shops in this property. Petitioners are tenants of Shop No. 1/399/1-2. Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act on 22.11.1994 against the petitioners on the allegation that the shop in question is in dilpidated conditions and requires demolition and reconstruction. Petitioners filed written statement and denied that the shops in question were in dilapidated condition. The parties led evidence in the case. The Prescribed Authority found that the shops in question were in dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. It was further found that respondent No. 3 has sufficient income to reconstruct the shops and the plan for reconstruction was sanctioned by the competent authority. The application was allowed by order dated 7.8.1995. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and respondent No. 1 has dismissed the appeal on 30.1.1996. Petitioners have challenged these orders in the present writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the shops in question were in dilapidated condition. It was urged that the affidavits were filed on behalf of petitioners stating that the shops in question were not in dilapidated condition. The affidavits on behalf of respondent No. 3 were also filed stating that the shops in question were in dilapidated condition. Petitioners submitted a report of B.S. Bajaj, Architect, who gave details regarding the disputed shops and in his opinion the shops in question were not in dilapidated condition. He had also filed affidavit in support of his report. On behalf of respondent No. 3 Rakesh Mohan Gupta, Architect and Engineer, filed report. He also filed affidavit in support of his report. He gave details indicating that the shops in question were in dilapidated condition. It is urged that the Prescribed Authority should have either himself inspected the premises in question or should have appointed Commissioner for inspecting the shops in question.
(3.) THE petitioners neither applied for appointment of Commissioner before the Prescribed Authority nor made a request to the Prescribed Authority to make local inspection. Similarly before the Appellate Authority the petitioners never applied for appointment of Commissioner nor requested the Appellate Authority to make local inspection. The Appellate Authority in its order has observed that the petitioners never made a request to make local inspection. The petitioners now cannot urge that the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority committed any illegality by not appointing Commissioner to make local inspection. The Prescribed Authority in these circumstances was justified in recording finding on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.;