R.H.ZAIDI,J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 22.7.1992 passed by Prescribed Authority, allowing release application filed by the respondent No. 3, under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, for short the 'Act' and also order dated 23.8.1982 passed by appellate authority dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of Prescribed Authority.
(2.) RELEVANT facts of the case are that petitioner was in occupation of house No. 803, new 4/6/1, Gudri Bazar, Rath Haweli, Faizabad, for short 'building in dispute', as a tenant. Respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that building in dispute was in dilapidated condition and he wanted to reconstruct the same. It was pleaded that building was rendered unfit for residential purposes. It was more than 100 years old. Same, therefore, required demolition and new construction. On receipt of the notice from the Court of Prescribed Authority, petitioner filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the release application. It was pleaded that building in question was not in dilapidated condition, nor same was unfit for habitation. Release application was nothing but pretext to eject petitioner before filing release application, therefrom. It was pleaded that previously house No. 804, which is situated appurtenant to the building in dispute was got released by respondent No. 3, on the ground that same was in dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. Said building was released long back. Respondent No. 3 demolished the said building, but till date it was not reconstructed.
(3.) BOTH parties produced evidence (oral and documentary) for and against. Prescribed Authority allowed application by its judgment and order dated 27.2.82, holding that building in question was in dilapidated condition and was required for demolition and reconstruction. It was also held that requirement of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act, was fulfilled by respondent No. 3. Petitioner challenged validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Appeal filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed by the appellate authority by its judgment and order dated 23.8.1992. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court and filed present petition challenging validity of the orders passed by the authorities below, as stated above.;