Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) THIS is a case from the hills of Pauri Garhwal from a small town known as Kotdwara. The issue was simple but began in 1971. Sixteen years have passed and it is yet to be resolved. The petitioner, a lady, is a widow. Her husband died during the period when the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were initiated. By an application under Section 3 under the Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. Ill of 1947) she sought dispossession of her tenants as she required the premises and the accommodation after demolition for reconstruction. The reconstruction of the accommodation was inextricably linked with her personal need. Dilapidation of the accommodation was consequential. She applied before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in an application under U. P. Act No. Ill of 1947, aforesaid, that she would be in a position to augment her income with better rents and thus a better return from her property, if she were to reconstruct the dilapidated accommodation. The application of the widow before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was dated 26 June, 1971.
(2.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer made a personal inspection of the premises and the accommodation. Upon being satisfied that the accommodation was dilapidated and required reconstruction after demolition, which would otherwise be conducive to the petitioners' personal need for,- better return on the property, permission under the application was granted. The application was allowed, it may be mentioned, under the jurisdiction of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), which had since the pendency of the case, had come into operation. The widow had made suitable amendments in her application and converted it into an application under section 21 of the new Act. After the Prescribed Authority passed his order of 2 May 1977 it was made a subject matter of appeal initially, being Civil Appeals nos. 9 and 10 of 1977 in the Court of the District Judge. Pauri Garhwal; different tenants had filed separate appeals hence different numbers. Subsequent to these appeals, two writ-petitions were filed-which occasioned two further judgments in appeal by the District Judge, upon an order of remand by the High Court. The present writ petition is the third Writ Petition against the third order of the District Judge, upon remand in appeal.
(3.) THE application of the widow of 26 June 1971, in effect, requiring accommodation for personal need and for reconstructing after demolition is still under consideration. One aspect will thus become very relevant and this is the passage of 16 years since the application had originally been presented by the widow. Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is whether the factors as may have weighed with the authorities in reference to personal need or the criteria for demolition of structures consequent upon their allegedly being dilapidated, remaining the same with the passage of time. A circumstance which this Court cannot ignore is that no matter can remain static between the space of time and it is only a continuing process of change which is permanent. Implying that if any state of affairs, in reference to the context, regard being had to the accommodation being dilapidated 16 years ago would make it more so since when this litigation has peen pending. Likewise the personal need of the widow would not remain static. This can change also. For this aspect, itself, it had become necessary to summon the record of the two earlier writ petitions. They were writ petition no. 7283 of 1978 : Smt Chandrawati v. District Judge, Pauri and others decided by Hon'ble S. D. Agarwala, J. on 19 July 1979 and writ petition no. 2934 of 1982 : Smt. Chandrawati v. District Jude, Pauri Garhwal and others decided by Hon'ble R. M. Sahai, J. on 13 January 1986.;