M.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 1995 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Etawah, thereby allowing an appeal of the landlord Respondents and ordering the eviction of the Petitioner from a house No. 92, and appurtenant land No. 91, situate in mohalla Jatpura, in the town of Etawah.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the writ petition has been finally heard. The landlord Respondents moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) read with Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the eviction of the tenant Petitioner from the aforesaid house claiming that they had purchased the said property by a sale -deed dated 9th May, 1983, and they needed the same for their own bona fide needs. It was also contended that the house is in a dilapidated condition being more than 200 years old and a new construction of the house is the only alternative. According to them, it was necessary to demolish the standing structures for the better use of the land and raise a fresh building thereon. The details of the reasons why the two applicants require the property in question for their personal use were given and it was also stated that they have the means to raise buildings on the land. It was also stated that a required legal notice dated 15th October, 1984, was served on the tenant and a further notice dated 27th September, 1986, was served by way of additional information, though the same was not required and the proceedings are maintainable on the basis of the notice dated 15th October, 1984, and more than three years have passed since the property was purchased.
(3.) THE tenant (Petitioner) contested the proceedings denying that the property was in a dilapidated condition. The allegations regarding the alleged need of the landlord applicants were also controverted. The contents of paragraph 16 of the application mentioning the service of the notices aforesaid were denied and it was said that the application is premature.;