- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20-9-1993 whereby the Prescribed Authority has allowed the application of the landlord filed under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order dated 22-4-1997 passed by the Respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE landlord filed an application under Section 21 (l.) (b) of U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the building is an old one and requires reconstruction and after reconstruction the said building will be used for his personal purpose. THE petitioner contested the said application and it was denied that there was any need of the landlord and the building was not in a dilapidated condition. THE Prescribed Authority, after considering the material evidence on the record and the reports of the architect engineer, came to the con clusion that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction. THE landlord has complied with the require ments of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. It was held that the application has been filed under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act and the question of need of the landlord does not arise. THE petitioner filed appeal and the appeal has been dismissed by Respondent No. 1 on 22-4-1997. I have heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the Respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the finding recorded by respon dent No. 1 that the building in question is in a dilapidated condition is erroneous. I have perused both the orders and I do not find that the finding is erroneous in law. Both the authorities have recorded a finding that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction. The findings are based on the reports of the engineers.
(3.) THE next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act and there is no map, estimate of expenditure of demolition and reconstruction. It has been found by both the authorities that the map has been prepared for reconstruction and there is suf ficient fund with the landlord to reconstruct the building. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end submitted that no period has been specified for reconstruction and the Sales T2ix Department has its office in the dis puted building. In Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed, AIR 1991 SC 455, the Supreme Court made the following observation: - "we, however, direct that the landlord/ap pellant shall take effective steps for completing reconstruction of the building within a reasonable period i. e. six months from the date the tenant/respondent vacates the building. The tenant is, however, given time till 31st March, 1991 to vacate the premises. We further direct the landlord/appellant to commence the construction work, if possible, the portion occupied by the tenant, immediately after his vacating the said premises. ";