JUDGMENT This writ petition has been preferred for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.1984 passed by the District Judge, Almora, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1981, Kishan Chandra Pande Vs. Padam Singh, whereby the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.3.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority Almora was set aside and the release application of the landlord dated 22.12.1980 under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) was allowed. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that the respondent-landlord Kishan Chandra Pande filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act against the petitioner-tenant before the Prescribed Authority for release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground that the walls and roof of the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner have fallen down, that the said shop as well as the Sahan of Sri Hanumanji Temple requires reconstruction and as such it is necessary that the tenant should vacate the same so as to enable the landlord to carry out necessary repairs and construction. It was alleged that Sri Padam Singh is occupying the disputed shop at monthly rental of Rs. 8/-, that the landlord is the manager of the said temple, who manages the property of the temple and realizes its rent. It was further stated that the said temple is situate on the upper storey of the building and the Sahan of the temple lies over the roof of the disputed shop. It was further stated that for the proper and safe use of the Sahan of the said temple by its devotees and worshippers particularly at the time of festivals etc. when there is huge crowd of visitors, it is necessary that the disputed shop, which is in dilapidated condition, may be rebuilt anew pucca with cement. It was also alleged that the temple is a public place being visited by the Hindu devotees and worshippers frequently and it is in the interest of public safety that the said dilapidated shop may be got reconstructed. It was also alleged that the tenant has not vacated the shop despite service of notice, request and reminders and that the landlord has got the map sanctioned by the Nagar Palika for reconstruction of the disputed shop. It was also alleged that the tenant has not vacated the shop despite service of notice, request and reminders and that the landlord has got the map sanctioned by the Nagar Palika for reconstruction of the disputed shop. It was also stated that the landlord has sufficient funds to meet the estimated costs of construction. 3. The tenant-petitioner filed his written statement and contested the application. He admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, monthly rent of Rs. 8/- and that the landlord manages the property of the said temple and realizes rent, but denied that he is the owner of the temple. It was asserted that the idol of Shri Hanumanji is the owner of the said temple. He denied the disputed shop having been in a dilapidated condition with its wall and roof having fallen down and that it is dangerous. He also denied the necessary of demolition and reconstruction of the disputed shop. It was alleged that the landlord had broken one of Patals of the roof of the shop in order to harass the tenant and to get him vacate the shop so as to let it out at an enhanced rent. It was pleaded that the Municipal Board Almora had no right to sanction the map, that the application of the tenant under Section 28(4) of the said Act had been rejected as legally not maintainable and not on the ground alleged by the landlord. It was also pleaded that the landlord-respondent has not obtained the sanction for reconstruction from the Prescribed Authority as required by Section 7 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, which is in force at Almora since 30.10.1980 and as such the application for release is not legally maintainable. 4. The learned Prescribed Authority after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the parties counsel found that the landlord failed to prove that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition, that it requires demolition and reconstruction or that the landlord has taken the required permission under Section 7 of the U.P. (R.B.O.) Act No. 34 of 1958. The Prescribed Authority ultimately held that the release application is not legally maintainable and dismissed the same by its order dated 23.3.1981. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord preferred an appeal before the District Judge Almora. 5. The Prescribed Authority ultimately held that the release application is not legally maintainable and dismissed the same by its order dated 23.3.1981. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord preferred an appeal before the District Judge Almora. 5. The appellants court after considering the provisions of Section 21(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-vis the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the Executive Officer, Nagarpalika Almora, had issued a notice under Section 263 of the U.P. Municipalities Act calling upon the landlord to get the shop situate at the gate of Sri Hanumanji Temple set right because the same was reported to have been in dilapidated condition. The appellate court has observed as under:- "The result, therefore, is that this notice not only proves the dilapidated condition of the shop but also the fact that its walls and roof are in such damaged and dangerous condition that they require demolition and reconstruction. Not only this, this notice also clarifies the legal position that if such dangerous condition of the shop causes any damage to the life and property of any one, it is the landlord alone who shall be personally responsible for the same and not the Nagarpalika Almora." 6. Ultimately, the learned District Judge found that the building requires demolition as well as that a proper estimate of expenditure over the proposed demolition and new construction has been prepared and a map was got sanctioned by the Municipal Board Almora in that behalf. It was also found that the landlord has the financial capacity for the purposes of demolition and new construction thereby all the ingredients of Section 21(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules frames thereunder were satisfied and consequently, the application for release was allowed vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1984. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.3.1984, the petitioner has come up before this Court in the present writ petition. 8. The main grounds on which the impugned order has been assailed are that the learned District Judge has erred in considering that no estimate of expenditure for the purposed demolition was furnished by the respondent-landlord, therefore, the mandatory requirement of Rule 17 was lacking, that the financial capacity of the landlord was not substantiated by documentary evidence, that the conclusion that the shop in question is in dilapidated condition was not established by way of photographs. 9. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the both the parties at length and perused the record including the impugned order. I have also considered the averments made in the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner along with its annexures. 10. During the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner Padam Singh has died, therefore, he has been substituted by his legal heirs Smt. Devaki Devi and others vide order dated 14.11.2006 passed by this Court. 11. It is pertinent to note that in sub-para c) of paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit the respondent has mentioned as under:- "c) That as the Municipal Board, Almora gave a notice under section 263 of U.P. Municipalities Act in this connection to the answering deponent (Opposite Party no. 2) who manages the entire affairs of the said temple and is also the landlord of the building (admitted by both the parties) and asked the deponent, o.p. no. 2 to get it set right immediately otherwise he shall be fully responsible for any damage to any life and property of any one and the Nagar Palika would not be responsible for any such damage. The deponent on 8.9.1980 replied the notice of Nagar Palika, Almora." 12. The petitioners in para no. 10 of the Rejoinder Affidavit have replied as under :- "10. That in reply to the contents of sub-para (c) of the para 4 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the respondent no. 2 himself managed to serve a notice on him through Municipal Board, so that he could use the same as a piece of evidence to prove that the tenanted portion is in dilapidated condition. If the tenanted shop of the petitioner was in dilapidated condition why the two adjoining shops, situated under the same roof, were not in dilapidated condition. No Municipal official was produced to prove the contents of the notice. There is no law which could presume genuineness of notice, without proving its contents by oral evidence. A notice can never be treated as Public document." 13. From a bare perusal of the averments made by the parties in the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit would lead to no other inference that the petitioner could not deny the fact that the respondent no. A notice can never be treated as Public document." 13. From a bare perusal of the averments made by the parties in the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit would lead to no other inference that the petitioner could not deny the fact that the respondent no. 2 Kishan Chandra Pande is admittedly the landlord of the accommodation in question else specific denial might have come in reply to sub-para c) of paragraph no. 4 of the counter affidavit. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that there has been no evidence worth the name that the disputed shop was in dilapidated condition, hence the learned Prescribed Authority has rightly rejected the release application but the finding of the appellate court to the contrary is not tenable. 15. At the outset it may be mentioned that the scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the court concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675] that "On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction." In the case "Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash" [(2004) 3 S.C.C. page 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that "An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. Ravi Prakash" [(2004) 3 S.C.C. page 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that "An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal." 16. It is pertinent to mention that there is no dispute of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the monthly rent of the disputed shop is Rs. 8/-. 17. The finding whether the disputed shop is in dilapidated condition or not is a finding of fact. A bare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, it is obvious that the appellate court has dealt with all the ingredients of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. The appellate court has first of all took up the point of dilapidated condition, necessity of demolition and new construction. The appellate court has placed reliance upon the affidavits filed by two independent persons of the locality, namely, Sri B.L. Shah, who is a retired Gazetted Officer and a regular devotee of the temple and Sri R.L. Verma, a resident of Sunar Mohalla. The learned appellate court has also relied upon the notice dated 2.9.1981 (paper no. 11C) received by the landlord from the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Almora under Section 263 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. Learned District Judge has while dealing with the evidence on the dilapidated condition of the shop has observed as under :- "Learned counsel for the tenant-respondent could not show me that it is a false, fictitious, forged, concocted or manipulated. He merely argued that it cannot be read in evidence as it has not been proved by swearing on affidavit of the Executive Officer, M.B. Almora. He merely argued that it cannot be read in evidence as it has not been proved by swearing on affidavit of the Executive Officer, M.B. Almora. I do not agree with this contention for the simple reason that this document is a public document within the meaning of Sec. 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such being the record of an act of the Local Self Government Authority, it does not require any proof at all. Learned counsel for the respondent could not show me any provision of law or authority of the ruling to the contrary. It is amusing to note that the learned Prescribed Authority has rejected this important document on the ground that it is not proved at all according to the Indian Evidence Act and that the landlord has not produced the postal envelope in which the said notice has been received by the landlord. In my view it was not necessary that this notice should have been served on the landlord either by post or enclosed in an envelope. Thus, both these objections against this notice are without any basis at all. The result, therefore, is that this notice not only proves the dilapidated condition of the shop but also the fact that its walls and roof are in such damaged and dangerous condition that they require demolition and reconstruction. Not only this, this notice also clarifies the legal position that if such dangerous condition of the shop causes any damage to the life and property of any one, it is the landlord alone who shall be personally responsible for the same and not the Nagar Palika Almora." 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has firstly submitted that the release application moved by the respondent no. 2 in his personal capacity was not legally maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramchand (Dead) by Legal Representatives Vs. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj and Another [AIR, 1970, Supreme Court, 532]. The ratio of the case cannot be disputed. In that case before the Apex Court, Suit No. 41 of 1947 was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mathura, by the deity Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj, acting through its manager. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj and Another [AIR, 1970, Supreme Court, 532]. The ratio of the case cannot be disputed. In that case before the Apex Court, Suit No. 41 of 1947 was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mathura, by the deity Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj, acting through its manager. The facts of the case are quite distinct, because in the case at hand, the application for release of shop was filed by the respondent Kishan Chandra Pande as landlord. He claimed himself as the Manager and landlord of the shop in paragraph no. 2 of the application for release. The relationship of landlord and tenant has already been dealt with and decided by the learned District Judge. It is evident from a bare perusal of the order dated 23.3.1981 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Munsif) Almora in Rent Case No. 1 of 1981, Padam Singh Vs. Kishan Chandra that the petitioner has claimed himself to be the tenant of respondent Kishan Chandra Pande. The application under section 28(4) of the Act was moved by the petitioner against the respondent no. 2 for seeking direction of the Prescribed Authority to make repairs of the disputed shop. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 23.3.1981 Annexure R.A.-8. The petitioner has relied upon the copy of order dated 23.3.1981 (Annexure R.A. 8 to the rejoinder affidavit). Therefore, it does not lie in the month of the petitioner to challenge that the respondent is not the landlord of the disputed shop. This may a ground that no such argument was raised before the District Judge from the side of the petitioner, because it was the own case of the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority that the respondent Kishan Chandra Pande is the landlord of the disputed shop. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that if any fact is pleaded, issue has to be framed on that pleading so that the parties could lead evidence. The contention of the learned counsel is that the trial court did not frame any issue or point for determination on the point of ownership. It may be mentioned here that no cross-appeal or cross-objection was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge Almora. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal Vs. It may be mentioned here that no cross-appeal or cross-objection was filed by the petitioner before the District Judge Almora. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Banda (Dead) and Others [1993(21) Allahabad Law Reports, Page 233 (S.C.)] wherein the Apex Court while dealing with Order 20, Rules 4(1) and 5 read with Sections 2(2) and 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure has held that if the judgment of the Small Cause Court did not state points for determination and no finding is recorded on each of the points for determination, it does not amount to a judgment and decree. The ratio of the judgment cannot be disputed. In the case at hand, the learned District Judge has not committed any such error in the impugned judgment. As mentioned above, there was no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, there was no need to frame any point for determination on this point. The case-law, therefore, does not help the petitioner. 20. The third argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the release application filed by the respondent does not disclose necessary averments regarding the dilapidated condition of the disputed shop. The contention of the learned counsel is not acceptable, because in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 there are specific averments made regarding the dilapidated condition of the entire building including the disputed shop, which is under the tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner himself has filed a copy of the release application as Annexure R.A.-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. It may also be mentioned that the learned District Judge has dealt with the matter of dilapidated condition of the building in so many words in the impugned judgment. 21. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has not established that the entire building is in dilapidated condition and therefore the building requires demolition and re-construction. The contention of the learned counsel is not tenable for the simple reason because in paragraph no. 9 of the application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act moved by the landlord it has been specifically alleged that the ground floor of the building and its roof require to be demolished and reconstruction. The contention of the learned counsel is not tenable for the simple reason because in paragraph no. 9 of the application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act moved by the landlord it has been specifically alleged that the ground floor of the building and its roof require to be demolished and reconstruction. It was also mentioned that the map had been sanctioned by Nagar Palika for that purpose and the estimated cost therefore would come to Rs. 5,500/- as determined by the expert. In para no. 10 it has been claimed that the applicant is financially capable to raise new construction. In paragraph no. 11 it has been alleged that unless the shop is not vacated by the petitioner no reconstruction can take place. Thus from the averments made in the application it is obvious that the entire disputed shop requires demolition and reconstruction. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Chando Devi and other Vs. The IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mathura and others, [1984, A.R.C. Page 10], wherein it has been observed that "True, demolition and reconstruction are additional requirement to be satisfied before a building can be released but the word dilapidated cannot be read in isolation or divorced from the context in which it is used. Requirement of reconstruction gives clue to the sense in which word dilapidated should be understood., The Legislature while using the word dilapidated along with demolition or reconstruction left no room for doubt that it should be understood in its stronger sense that is the building is beyond repairs and it should be demolished and reconstructed. If the word is understood in sense of a building having cracks or old or needing repairs due to neglect then it shall frustrate objective of its enactment and shall result in pretext in hands of landlords to get rid of their tenants from old buildings." 23. It is pertinent to mention that the learned District Judge has elaborately dealt with this point from page 4 to page 13 of the impugned judgment. At the very outset, the learned District Judge in paragraph no. It is pertinent to mention that the learned District Judge has elaborately dealt with this point from page 4 to page 13 of the impugned judgment. At the very outset, the learned District Judge in paragraph no. 6 has observed that "it is important to note that the requirement of law is not merely the dilapidated condition of the accommodation but also that it is required to be vacated by the tenant for the purpose of demolition and new construction. The idea behind this provision is that the accommodation does not require merely repairs but altogether a complete demolition and a complete new construction. It is further important to note that such an application for release can be allowed only if the Prescribed Authority is satisfied as required by Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972." It may be added here that the learned District Judge has discussed the affidavits filed by the tenant. The learned District Judge has rejected the stand of the tenant that the Patal of the roof of the shop had been broken by the landlord. After perusing the evidence on record, it was held by the District Judge at page 11 of the impugned judgment that the landlord has clearly and convincingly proved that the shop is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. In my view the requirement of law has been held in 1984, A.R.C., Page 10 (supra) stands fully satisfied in the case at hand. 24. It has further been held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma and others Vs. V Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others [2002(1) A.R.C. page 568] that in order to attract Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, the building in question must be beyond repairs and it has to be demolished and reconstructed. It has been further held that the building having cracks or old or needing repairs due to neglect, does not come under this Section. The ratio of the judgment cannot be disputed. The requirement of law stands fulfilled in the case at hand, therefore, this case-law does not help the petitioner. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there has been non-compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. The ratio of the judgment cannot be disputed. The requirement of law stands fulfilled in the case at hand, therefore, this case-law does not help the petitioner. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that there has been non-compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. This contention is without any basis, for the simple reason because the entire judgment of the learned District Judge hinges around the ingredients of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act. 26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the photographs annexed by the petitioner along with the Rejoinder Affidavit would show that the walls of the building are not in dilapidated condition. These photographs cannot be considered in exercise of writ jurisdiction rather they have been filed to lead additional evidence. This court cannot sit like a court of appeal in writ jurisdiction. I am not inclined to give any weight to these photographs. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly contended that the landlord-respondent no. 2 himself had an apprehension that the real truth will come before the court if the commissioner makes a local inspection. The learned District Judge has already dealt with this point in detail in paragraph no. 21 of the impugned judgment and has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent. The Prescribed Authority was fully competent to make local inspection for a just decision of the matter and there was no restriction on the power and jurisdiction of the learned Prescribed Authority in making a local inspection himself in order to satisfy himself over the dilapidated condition of the same. The petitioners cannot take any advantage from this bald submission. 28. For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, I am of the view that the release application moved by the respondent no. 2 is legally maintainable. The landlord-respondent No. 2 has fully established on record that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition and it requires complete demolition and reconstruction and all the ingredients of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act have been fully complied with and maintained. The notice-dated 2.9.1981 (paper no. 11-C) has been rightly held by the District Judge to be admissible in evidence and the same has been rightly relied upon by the appellate court. The notice-dated 2.9.1981 (paper no. 11-C) has been rightly held by the District Judge to be admissible in evidence and the same has been rightly relied upon by the appellate court. It has been rightly concluded that the said notice did not require formal proof by the authority concerned of Nagar Palika Almora. The District Judge has held that the landlord has filed the approved and sanctioned plan of the reconstruction of the shop (paper no. 10C). It was also found by the learned District Judge that the landlord has the financial capacity for the proposed demolition of the shop in question and its new construction. The findings recorded by the learned District Judge Almora do not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the tenant-petitioners is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright. 29. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 30. Interim order dated 28.5.1984 is vacated. 31. All applications stand disposed of.