Rajeshwar Singh, J. - (1.) The landlord moved an application against the tenant under Section 21 of the Act U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for release of the accommodation in occupation of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and that the building is in a dilapidated condition required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. The tenant went in appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Against that decision of the District Judge the tenant has filed the present writ petition praying that the order passed by the District Judge and Prescribed Authority be quashed and costs of the writ petition be awarded to him.
(2.) The petitioner-tenant firstly pressed that there was no bona fide need of the landlord and the building was not in a dilapidated condition. Both these are questions of fact on which the learned District Judge has given his finding after taking the evidence into consideration. As regards the bona fide need an affidavit has been filed in this Court saying that one of the daughter of the landlord, who is M.B.B.S. has joined as Lecturer at Aligarh University and one other son of the landlord has also become Lecturer in that University. The daughter who is said to have joined the Muslim University, is already married. She and her brother, who joined as a Lecturer, may be excluded. Even then the landlord, his wife, one son, daughter-in-law and daughter remained members of the family as has been mentioned in Paragraph 4 of copy of land-lord's application for release-annexure 1. The accommodation in this house is only one big room and two small rooms besides verandah and lantrie. The family of the landlord is accused one, most of them are Doctors. Such a family requires drawing-room, separate bed rooms and arrangement for guests. Keeping this into consideration the finding of the Courts below do not become vitiated even if the married daughter and one son have taken up employment in another city. So far as the question of dilapidated condition of the building is concerned, there reports of Engineers from both sides. The learned District Judge considered these reports, age of the building and reasons given in these reports and he came to the conclusion that the report of the landlord's Expert was entitled to greater weight and the learned Prescribed Authority has rightly accepted it. In coming to these findings of fact no illegality or irregularity appears to have been committed. So they have to be accepted in writ petition and this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence and disturb the finding of fact. From the case of Panneerdas and Co. v. Swadeshmitran Ltd., (1987) 3 SCC 58 , it is clear that findings regarding age and condition of the building is finding of fact and such findings of Appellate Authority are not to be inferred with by High Court.
(3.) The argument of the tenant's learned Counsel is that Clause (a) of Section 21(1) permit release on the ground of bona fide requirements and Clause (b) permits the same on the ground that the building is in a dipalidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. He proceeds that in case permission is given under Clause (b) the tenant has certain rights under Section 24 of the Act and if some conditions are satisfied the tenant can get possession of the newly constructed accommodation or a part. Since the order is under the both the clauses the tenant will not be able to take advantage of Section 24 and the order passed by the Courts below is bad inasmuch as it does not specify as to under which clause the permission was being given and it appears to give permission under both the clauses.;