U.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, dismissing the tenant's appeal against the order passed by the prescribed Authority allowing the landlords' application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Opposite parties 3 and 4 who are admittedly the landlords of the premises in dispute ever since they purchased the same from its previous owner through registered sale deed filed an application under section 3 of U.P. (temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act in the year 1971. This application was moved against the petitioner as well as three other tenants who were residing in the premises in dispute. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it was alleged that they were tenant of a portion in the ground floor, as well as in the first floor having six rooms five godowns, two tin sheds and verandah in the ground floor and eight rooms, two tin sheds, bath room, latrin, kitchen and open chhat in the first floor at a yearly rent of Rs 5,200/- and they were carrying on business of commission agents in the tenanted building which business became very slack The case of the landlords was that they have closed their commission agent business at Agra and they want to run the very same business at Kanpur in the premises in dispute which they have purchased and they want to reconstruct the said building for their business purposes which according to them was very old building and was likely to fall down at any time having got cracks at many places and there was no strength left in the structure. So far as the case of opposite party No. 4 is concerned, it was stated that he has purchased back side of the house to run a Hotel in the locality. The petitioner contested the said case and the case of the petitioner was that in ground floor opposite party No. 3 was partner in the firm Moti Lal Chajjoo Lai till 25th February, 1970 and now he has no interest in the firm Moti Lal Chajjoo Lal and that is why they were out to harass him. The tenant pleaded in the written statement that it is not correct to state that the building is old or its condition is such that it requires demolition and new construction. According to them the building can last about 50 years, and was taken by them for purposes of business and residence and there was slackness in their business. The so called need of the landlords was challenged and the application was described as malicious. It is thus clear that opposite parties 3 and 4 as per their own allegation purchased a very old tenanted building and expected to get it vacated for carrying on their own business. The parties are known to each other and it is evident that opposite party No. 3 who wants to carry on commission agent business in the reconstructed premises had something to do with the petitioner's concern being a partner earlier in the commission agent business.
(2.) During the pendency of the case U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force and the application was converted into one under section 21 of U P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and fresh affidavits were filed. Before the Prescribed Authority the landlord also filed a site plan of the house in dispute as well as assessment report and inspection report said to have been prepared by Shri A. T. Patel, Engineer, while the petitioner filed inspection report said to have been given by Shri N. Gupta, Engineer of Nagar Mahapiliki, an approved Architect and Valuer in respect of the house in dispute. The report of Shri A. T. Patel was filed as an annexure to the affidavit of Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, but the affidavit of Shri Patel was not filed on behalf of the petitioner also. The affidavit of the Engineer who is said to have given report in their favour was not filed.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority after relying on the report of Sri A. T. Patel, which was filed as Annexure to the affidavit read with some other evidence came to the conclusion that the building is an old one having cracks and requires demolition and reconstruction and Rule 17 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 has been complied with. The Prescribed Authority has held that the business of the tenant has slacked down and the tenant has not filed any document from Income tax as well as Sales tax Authorities to show anything to the contrary. As such the needs of the opposite parties 3 and 4 for carrying on commission agent business and fur constructing a good Hotel for visitors is genuine. After recording this finding the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of opposite parties 3 and 4. An appeal against the same came up before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, who also took the give view that the business of the petitioner has slacked down and the needs of the opposite parties 3 and 4 who purchased this old building in the year 19 9(SIC) were genuine and bona fide and they would get it demolished and reconstruct it and they have complied with the provisions of Rule 17 inasmuch as they have submitted a plan which has been duly prepared and conforms to the bye laws of the Local Authority and notwithstanding that the entire sale consideration has not been paid by opposite parties 3 and 4, it cannot be said that their financial condition is not such that they cannot reconstruct the said building. The Appellate Court observed that provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not apply in its entirety, the report of A. T. Patel was admissible and could be read in evidence in holding that the building was old one and requires reconstruction. So far as the report of Sri Maheshwari prasad Mittal is concerned, the appellate court also rejected the same as having not been proved as there was no affidavit by any one to prove the same. The appellate court held that the Prescribed Authority has rightly released the premises in dispute in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4, but made certain amendments in his order inasmuch as proviso to section 21(b) was not considered and no compensation was awarded, as such two years rent was awarded to the petitioner and with this modification the appeal was dismissed.;