- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Smt. Jaya Devi and another (Vijai Kumar) have filed this peti tion in order to challenge judgment and order 31st August, 1999 in Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 1997 (Anncxure-9 to the Writ Petition) where by the Appellate Authority, exercising powers under Sec tion 22 'of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called "the Act") held that applica tion under Section 21 (l) (b) of the Act was liable to be allowed on the finding that the accommodation in question (in occupa tion of the petitioner) required demolition and reconstruction because of itself being very old and in a dilapidated condition (particular page86ol the paper book ).
(2.) THE Appellate Authority observed that landlord had submitted a plan and an estimate through an approved Engineer. Appellate Authority also observed, on the basis of evidence on record that estimate and report/plan were submitted by an authorised Engineer of the Development Authority. copy of the estimate has been filed as Annexurc-5 to the petition (par ticular page 48 of the paper book ). This docu ment shows that Engineer Ravindra Kumar Nikhra, who had submitted plan/report and estimate was an approved Engineer of Jhansi Development Authority, Jhansi. It may be stated that release ap plication was both under Section 21 (l) (a) and (b) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority, on the basis of material on record, concluded that need of the landlord was not bona fide and rejected the application. Prescribed Authority also found that application could not be allowed on the ground con templated under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act, Release application was, accordingly, rejected.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No. 10 of 1997 (Smt. Ram Kunwar v. Smt. Jaya Devi and others), and same has been, as stated above, al lowed only on the ground as contemplated under Section 21 (l) (b ). Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that release application under Sec tion 21 (l) (b) has been wrongly allowed without recording finding with regard to Clause (i) and Clause (iii) of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act.;