- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. The petitioner is landlord of the premises in dispute. The building in dispute is claimed to be about 200 years old.
(2.) PETITIONER-landlord filed an application under Section 21 (I) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'u. P. Act No. XIII of 1972') for release of the premises on the ground that it was in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority after considering the material and evidence on record. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the tenant filed Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1997 which has been dismissed with the condition that the petitioner-landlord will re-construct the building within a period of one year and three months and will hand-over the same area to the tenant which was under his tenancy earlier. The operative portion of the order is as under: @hindi Aggrieved by the aforesaid condition, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant has not handed over possession of the premises, in dispute which is in his possession. He further states that the limitation for re-construction of the building in dispute would run from the date of handing over possession of the tenanted accommodation to the landlord.
(3.) SRI P. K. Jain counsel for the respondents states that the landlord himself has instituted Suit No. 85 of 2001, Vishal Chand v. Baleshwar in which an interim injunction has been granted for maintaining the status quo. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid suit is in respect of Malwa hence this has nothing to do with the possession.;