ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This petition is filed by the tenant, challenging an order passed by the trial court, allowing the application filed under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, as has been affirmed in appeal.
(2.) Following submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant petitioner:- (i). Tenant was in possession of a portion of house on the first floor and also on the second floor, but his tenancy has been confined to first floor alone, ignoring the evidence led with regard to his possession on the second floor. (ii). It is contended that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the premises was in dilapidated condition. (iii). That there was no map sanctioned by the Development Authority, and therefore, requirement of Rule 17 was met. (iv). It is also stated that though proceedings were initiated through a power of attorney, but such power of attorney was annexed. (v). It is also stated that plaintiff has to establish his own case, and since he has failed to establish his case, and therefore, the courts below have erred in decreeing the suit.
(3.) Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlord, on the other hand, contends that the courts below have confined their judgment to the pleadings put forth by the parties, and the arguments advanced before this Court are in tune with it. It is also stated that so far as power of attorney is concerned, no objection was raised, nor any issue in that regard was framed. Learned counsel further submits that a map in accordance with the bye-laws had been prepared, and since the total plot area was less than 100 sq. yard, and therefore, there was no requirement of prior approval being obtained from the concerned Development Authority. It is also stated that material in the nature of a certificate of Engineer as well as the local authority existed on record to show that building was more than 120 years old, and was in dilapidated condition.;