Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner is a widow. She ts tenant of the shop after death of her husband. She has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.2.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority. Azamgarh, dismissing her application under Section 28 (4) of the U. P, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short). FACTS
(2.) The premises in dispute is a kachcha shop. Sri Hazi Mohammad Yusuf father of present respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was the landlord. Sri Mukund Chand husband of the petitioner was tenant in the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 70 per month. He filed a suit for injunction against the original landlord, namely Sri Hazi Mohammad Yusuf and one other person Sri Mangal Chand for injunction restraining them from interfering with the right of the plaintiff as tenant over the premises in dispute. in this suit a compromise has been entered into between the husband of the petitioner and Hazi Mohammad the father of the contesting respondents. This compromise records that the rent of the shop has been increased from Rs. 70 to Rs. 100 ; the shop in question has become weak and has only ground floor ; the defendant (land-lord) shall have right to get more floors constructed but will hand over the shop of the ground floor to the tenant ; in case it is not done then plaintiff (tenant) shall have right to construct the ground floor shop and defendant shall have to pay the expenses ; the tenant shall be liable to pay the market rent. The other defendant No. 2, namely. Mangal Chand was not party to the compromise and such suit was thereafter has been decided ex porie against him on 31.5.1996. The copy of the judgment is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The suit was decreed. The defendants were restrained from interfering with plaintiffs right as tenants and were restrained from breaking it or destroying the things kept in the shop. The original land-lord or his sons respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have neither taken proceeding under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act to get the shop reconstructed nor have they acted in accordance with the compromise and the decree. On the contrary by their actions have acted against It. The shop is a kachcha shop. It has khaprail roof which is broken. It is not waterproof. The widow (tenant) was having difficulty in conducting the business in the shop. She filed an application under Section 28 of the Act. She said the expenses involved in repairing the roof of the disputed shop exceed two months rent and the landlord has failed to comply with the notice. The Prescribed Authority has rejected this application on the ground that: (a) according to the petitioner herself the expenses will come out to Rs. 250 which is more than Rs. 200 (two month's rent of the shop) ; (b) the notice given to landlord neither include the details of the repairs nor the increased rent: (c) the parties has compromised in the suit in 1984 in which it is mentioned that shop has become weak. Twelve years have passed since then. It must have weaken more and the shop cannot be repaired. Aggrieved by his order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(3.) Following points arise for consideration : (a) What are the rights and liabilities of tenant and the landlord? Has the law changed? (b) Are the reasons given by Prescribed Authority while rejecting the application valid? TENANT AND LANDLORD --RIGHT AND LIABILITY;