RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) This is landlord's petition. The petitioner is owner of house No. 21 Nalband Crossing, Urvasi Road, Firozabad, which was purchased by him by a registered sale-deed dated 28-5-1984 from its erstwhile owner Sri Dayal.
(2.) THE respondent-tenants were inducted as tenants by the erstwhile landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. The case of the petitioner-landlord is that the building in dispute is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. As such, he filed release application, registered as P. A. Case No. 60 of 1992 under Section 21 (1) (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') before the Prescribed Authority, Firozabad, which was decided in his favour vide judgment dated 11-3-1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (S. D.), Firozabad holding that the house is in dilapidated condition and it has been proved by the landlord that it is essential to demolish the accommodation in dispute as it is unrepairable. The Court has further held that it has not been denied by the tenant that the repairs are not possible and that the sanctioned map is in accordance with law. After holding that landlord had sufficient financial means, the Prescribed Authority directed to deliver vacant and actual possession of the accommodation otherwise the landlord would have right to get possession through Court in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-3-1998, aforesaid, the tenants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 1998 which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad vide impugned judgment dated 5-10-2002. Challenging the same, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- landlord.
(3.) CONTENTION of Counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord had offered accommodation on the ground floor of the house in dispute to the respondents after its demolition and reconstruction at the rate of rent chargeable according to law and despite clear finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority that condition of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was fulfilled by the landlord, the lower appellate Court has erroneously held that no affidavit was filed by the Architect in support of his report. He urged that the map submitted by the landlord was duly sanctioned by the competent authority and was in accordance with U. P. Regulation of Buildings Operation Act, 1958 as such, the same could not be disbelieved unless and until is disbelieved by the competent appellate authority. He further contended that if any repair was made by the tenant, he ought to have served mandatory notice to the landlord seeking his permission for repair as per mandate under Section 28 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, as such, the alleged repair has no effect over the report of Architect.;