S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This writ petition was earlier allowed by me on 2.2.2006 without hearing any one for tenant-respondent as no one had appeared on his behalf. Thereafter re-hearing application was filed which has been allowed today. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of my judgment dated 2.2.2006 which contained necessary facts are quoted below : "This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against original tenant respondent No. 2 Ajai Pal (since deceased and survived by legal representatives), under Section 21(1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging therein that building in dispute was in dilapidated condition and required demolition and new cons.ruction. The release application was registered as R.C. Case No. 28 of 1987 on the file of Prescribed Authority/ First Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar. In the release application it was stated that petitioner was the landlord, as he had purchased the property in dispute from Omwati through registered sale deed dated 7.11.1985 for Rs. 58.000/-. Initially Shrimati Siddhwati was owner landlord of the house in dispute. She executed power of attorney in favour of her son Ambrish Kumar. Ambrish Kumar on the basis of said power of attorney sold the property in dispute to his wife Omwati. Thereafter Omwati sold the property in dispute to the petitioner. Shrimati Siddhwati filed impleadment application before Prescribed Authority, which was rejected. It appears that thereafter she did not take any steps either for cancellation of the sale deed executed by Ambrish Kumar in favour of his wife nor sale deed executed by Omwati wife of Ambrish Kumar in favour of the petitioner. Prescribed Authority/First Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar found that petitioner was the landlord for the purposes of the case before him and that the building was in dilapidated condition. Other requirements of Rule 17 were also found to be proved. Accordingly release application was allowed for demolition and new construction through judgment and order dated 15.3.1990. Against the said judgment and order original tenant respondent No. 2 filed R. C. Appeal No. 18 of 1990. IVth ADJ, Bulandshahar through judgment and order dated 16.2.1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the release application, hence this writ petition by the landlord."
(2.) Appellate Court was legally not correct in holding that petitioner was not the undisputed landlord. Petitioner had purchased the property in dispute through registered sale deed. The vendor, previous owner landlady Smt. Sidhwati did not take any steps for cancellation of the sale deed. Accordingly, petitioner was landlord and was entitled to file release application.
(3.) As far as question of dilapidated condition is concerned, Advocate Commissioner clearly mentioned that roof of northern room was completely broken and wall had wide cracks. No symptom of residence was found in the said room. It was further reported that in another room out of 12 wooden beams 10 were found to be new and two old. Roof of staircase was also found broken and it was found that new staircase was being constructed. Roof of third room was also found to be broken. On the first floor doors were found not to have any door-leaves and all the walls were having wide cracks and no one was residing there. Advocate Commissioner found several new constructions including wall, staircase etc. being made by the tenant. Lower Appellate Court disbelieved the Advocate Commissioner's report on the ground that he reported that the building was 100 years old. Commissioner had only mentioned in the report that tenant himself stated that building was 100 years old.;