- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. These are two peti tions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, in Rent Control Appeal Nos. 40 and 39 of 1991 whereby he allowed the appeals of the tenant respondents against the orders of the prescribed authority ordering their eviction from the respective shops on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the building is not in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, dis missed the landlord's petitions. Feeling ag grieved, the petitioner landlord has filed these petitions
(2.) I have heard Sri M. S. Misra, learned counsel for the landlord petitioner, and Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the respective tenant respondents. Since the matter is common in both the petitions, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The petitioner landlady owns two adjoining shops, bearing municipal Nos. 156 and 157, in mohalla Gandhi Road, Khurja, district Bulandshahr. Shop No. 156 is in the tenancy of Dal Chand, the respon dent in Writ No. 4155 of 1993, while shop No. 157 is in the tenancy of Jumma Khan, respondent in the other petition. Each of the tenants is paying Rs. 151- per month as rent.
(3.) THE petitioner landlady moved separate petitions before the prescribed authority for their eviction claiming that the shops in questions are in a dilapidated con dition and are required for the purposes of demolition and new construction. The prescribed authority allowed the applications and ordered the eviction of the respective respondents. On appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding and held that the shops were not in a dilapidated condition.;