- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Substitution application to bring on record legal represen tative of tenant respondent No. 2, the only contesting respondent has been al lowed today. Notices on the said application were issued to the proposed heirs. Inspite of sufficient services as per office report dated 7. 7. 2008 they did not engage any Counsel.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the landlord-petitioner trust. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of release proceedings initi ated by it against original tenant respondent No. 2, Jyoti Swaroop since de ceased and survived by legal representative on the ground of dilapidated condition of the tenanted shop in dispute under section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Release appli cation was registered as P. A. Case No. 29 of 1987 on the file of Prescribed Authority/munsif City Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad and was allowed on 8. 8. 1989. It was held that the shop in dispute was very old and in dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. Ingredients of Rules 17 of the Rules framed under the Act were found to have been proved by the landlord. Rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 6. 25/- per month and it was found by prescribed authority that the construction of the shop was more than 100 years old. Against the said judgment and order original tenant respondent No. 2 filed R. C. Appeal No. 122 of 1989. IInd A. D. J. Farrukhabad allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 7. 7. 1994, set aside the release order passed by the prescribed authority and rejected the release application of the land lord, hence this writ petition.
(3.) THE Appellate Court held that it was not proved that the building was in dilapidated condition. Appellate Court further held that map of the new construction had not been passed by the Municipal Board and it was not shown that it was in accordance with the relevant rules of Nagar Mahapalika. Landlord asserted that building was more than 100 years old while tenant asserted that it was 60 years old. 21 years have passed since filing of the release application. During this period some further damage must have oc curred. The tenant in support of his case had filed report of city Engineer, Sri J. P. Gupta. However, Sri Gupta did not file his affidavit to verify his report. Sri J. P. Gupta had also not given any details in his report. Lower Appellate Court wrongly held that it was not essential for the city Engineer to give de tailed reasons for his report. Lower Appellate Court further held that it was also not necessary for Sri J. P. Gupta the city Engineer to file affidavit. I do not agree with any of the reasons. Firstly, it was necessary to file affidavit to prove the report and secondly, report being sketchy not containing the details could not relied upon. Reports based on subjective satisfaction, even of experts, are not of much value.;