Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.1987 passed by Respondent No. 1 allowing the appeal and dismissing the application filed by the landlord -petitioner. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is landlord of the premises in question. He filed an application for the release of the disputed shop on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition and wants reconstruction after demolition. This application was contested. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application on the ground of personal need. The tenant -Respondent filed an appeal against the said order. The Appellate Court held that the application was filed alleging that the disputed shop requires demolition and reconstruction and the application under Section 21 of the Act on the ground of personal need was not maintainable. The landlord filed this writ petition against the said order.
(2.) LEARNED Single Judge referred the following question to the larger Bench: Whether the need of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) can be considered even if the landlord had pleaded that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition? The Division Bench of this court answered the question referred to the Court as under: The need of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) can be considered even if the landlord had pleaded that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and new construction. In view of this decision the writ petition is allowed, the judgment of the Respondent No. 1 dated 24.8.1998 is hereby quashed. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.;