B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 31-3-1984 passed by the District Judge, Almora, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1981, Kishan Chandra Pande v. Padam Singh, whereby the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 23-3-1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority Almora was set aside and the release application of the landlord dated 22-12-1980 under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) was allowed.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that the respondent-landlord Kishan Chandra Pande filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act against the petitioner-tenant before the Prescribed Authority for release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that the walls and roof of the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner have fallen down, that the said shop as well as the Sahan of the Sri Hanumanji Temple requires reconstruction and as such it is necessary that the tenant should vacate the same so as to enable the landlord to carry out necessary repairs and construction. It was alleged that Sri Padam Singh is occupying the disputed shop at monthly rental of Rs. 8/-, that the landlord is the manager of the said temple, who manages the property of the temple and realizes its rent. It was further stated that the said temple is situate on the upper storey of the building and the Sahan of the temple lies over the roof of the disputed shop. It was further stated that for the proper and safe use of the Sahan of the said temple by its devotees and worshippers particularly at the time of festivals etc. when there is huge crowd of visitors, it is necessary that the disputed shop, which is in dilapidated condition, may be rebuilt anew pucca with cement. It was also alleged that the temple is a public place being visited by the Hindu devotees and worshippers frequently and it is in the interest of public safety that the said dilapidated shop may be got reconstructed. It was also alleged that the tenant has not vacated the shop despite service of notice, request and reminders and that the landlord has got the map sanctioned by the Nagar Palika for reconstruction of the disputed shop. It was also stated that the landlord has sufficient funds to meet the estimated costs of construction. The tenant-petitioner filed his written statement and contested the application. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, monthly rent of Rs. 8/- and that the landlord manages the property of the said temple and realizes rent, but denied that he is the owner of the temple. It was asserted that the idol of Shri Hanumanji is the owner of the said temple. He denied the disputed shop having been in a dilapidated condition with its wall and roof having fallen down and that it is dangerous. He also denied the necessity of demolition and reconstruction of the disputed shop. It was alleged that the landlord had broken one of the Patals of the roof of the shop in order to harass the tenant and to get him vacate the shop so as to let it out at an enhanced rent. It was pleaded that the Municipal Board Almora had no right to sanction the map, that the application of the tenant under Section 28(4) of the said Act had been rejected as legally not maintainable and not on the ground alleged by the landlord. It was also pleaded that the landlord- respondent has not obtained the sanction for reconstruction from the Prescribed Authority as required by Section 7 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, which is in force at Almora since 30-10-1980 and as such the application for release is not legally maintainable.
(3.) THE learned Prescribed Authority after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the parties counsel found that the landlord failed to prove that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition, that it requires demolition and reconstruction or that the landlord has taken the required permission under Section 7 of the U.P. (R.B.O.) Act No. 34 of 1958. The Prescribed Authority ultimately held that the release application is not legally maintainable and dismissed the same by its order dated 23-3-1981. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord preferred an appeal before the District Judge Almora.;