Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2841 (ALL)

Ali Bux v. Additional District Judge and 3 Ors.

2013-11-20

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2013
Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority /Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in rent case no. 2/2005 (Smt. Shakeela Begum Vs. Ghayur Khan and Another) and judgment and order dated 10.9.2013 passed in rent appeal no. 35/2008 (Ali Bux Vs. Smt. Shakeela Begum and Another) by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar. Vide order dated 17.1.2008, the application filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed, whereas by the subsequent order dated 10.9.2013, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.1.2008 has been dismissed. 3. While assailing these orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the building is not in dilapidated condition and both the courts below have erred in holding the building in dilapidated condition. In his further submissions, the landlord has not submitted the sanction map, therefore, the release application could not be allowed. He is also apprehending that the construction will not be completed within a period of six months as directed by the learned Prescribed Authority as neither any map has been sanctioned nor it has been submitted before the local authority and in case construction is delayed, it is none else except the petitioner who will be put to suffer, as he will not able to get the accommodation. 4. After going through the impugned judgments, I find that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the building is in dilapidated condition. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his argument by showing any material from record that the finding recorded by the courts below with regard to dilapidated condition of the building is in any manner perverse. So far as non-sanction of the map is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the area on which construction is to be made is about 83.38 sq. mtrs. which is less than 100 sq. mtrs., therefore, sanction map is not required. So far as non-sanction of the map is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the area on which construction is to be made is about 83.38 sq. mtrs. which is less than 100 sq. mtrs., therefore, sanction map is not required. He has also stated that the construction will be completed as per the direction of the courts below. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived and in case the building is not constructed as per the direction of the learned Prescribed Authority, the remedy for the petitioner is before the learned Prescribed Authority. 6. No interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some more time may be granted to the petitioner for vacating the accommodation in dispute. 8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted 40 days more time from today to vacate the premises and thereafter, the period of six months will start from the date of delivery of possession of the house to the landlord. In case the petitioner does not vacate the premises within the time allowed by this Court, the order of release be acted upon forthwith by the Prescribed Authority. ______________