JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner/Chairman, Agra Development Authority, Agra in an appeal filed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (In short Act, 1973). A prayer has also been made to quash the notice dated 7.10.2010 issued by the Vice Chairman, Agra Development Authority, Agra. 3. Brief facts relevant to decide the controversy are that the petitioners are tenants of shop No. 9, plot No. 59, Lajpatkunj, Agra. The owner of the aforesaid property was namely Sri Manohar Lal Vrindani. The shop was given on rent on 8.11.2001 and a rent deed alleged to have been executed between the parties. 4. Prior to the letting of the shop, it appears that an order dated 27.9.2001 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Agra Development Authority, Agra for demolition of the five shops constructed on plot No. 59, Lajpatkunj, Agra. It appears that the demolition order was not executed since then. A notice was issued to the petitioners on 7.10.2010 mentioning therein that there was already a demolition order dated 27.9.2001 to demolish the illegal construction but it has not been removed by the owner. An opportunity was provided to place the evidence, if any, regarding ownership of the shop and the sanctioned map/permission to raise construction. The petitioners being the tenants inducted by the then owner filed an appeal under Section 28 of the Act against the notice dated 7.10.2010 which was numbered as Appeal No. 33 of 2011. The said appeal was dismissed on 16.1.2015 and the Development Authority has been directed to execute the demolition order. Hence this writ petition. 5. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the demolition order dated 27.9.2001 does not relate to the petitioner's shop. The notice dated 7.10.2010 was issued in continuation of the demolition order dated 27.9.2001. No opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners before passing the alleged demolition order. 5. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the demolition order dated 27.9.2001 does not relate to the petitioner's shop. The notice dated 7.10.2010 was issued in continuation of the demolition order dated 27.9.2001. No opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners before passing the alleged demolition order. The demolition order has not been executed for more than a period of 14 years and the appellate authority had erred in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the demolition order has become final, as it has not been challenged by the original owner. 6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the order-sheet of the appeal that hearing of the appeal was preponed without any information to the petitioner as such the petitioner could not be represented before the appellate authority. 7. Drawing attention of the Court to the order sheet appended as Annexure VI to the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal was instituted on 7.4.2014, it was directed to be put up on 29.5.2014 but could not be taken up as the lawyers have abstained from work and the next date fixed was 13.10.2014. On 13.10.2014, the Presiding Officer was on leave and hence 2.2.2015 was fixed. However, the appeal was taken up on 17.11.2014 and it was mentioned in the order dated 17.11.2014 that the appellant had filed an application to decide the appeal on the basis of written arguments filed by him. Without fixing any date, on 16.1.2015, the appeal was decided without any information to the petitioner. The order passed by the appellate authority, therefore, suffers from patent illegality and is liable to set aside. 8. Repelling the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 had purchased the property in question from the original owner by way of a registered sale deed. When the fact of demolition order having been passed by the Development Authority on 27.9.2001 and the pending appeal came to the knowledge of respondent No. 3, an impleadment application was moved in the pending appeal. The impleadment application was allowed on 16.1.2015 and after hearing learned counsels for the parties, the appeal was decided. 9. When the fact of demolition order having been passed by the Development Authority on 27.9.2001 and the pending appeal came to the knowledge of respondent No. 3, an impleadment application was moved in the pending appeal. The impleadment application was allowed on 16.1.2015 and after hearing learned counsels for the parties, the appeal was decided. 9. The appellant Smt. Suman Gupta filed an application in appeal No. 33 of 2011 through her Advocate stating therein that she has filed a written submission in support of his contention and the appeal be disposed of treating the same as the arguments of the appellant. The said application was put up with appeal on 17.11.2014. Moreover, the arguments of the petitioners/appellants therein have been considered by the appellate authority and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner merely because they were not heard personally before passing the order dated 16.1.2015. 10. With reference to the order dated 5.5.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24124 of 2006 (Dr. Arvind Kumar Agrawal & Others v. Agra Development Authority) learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 3 vehemently submits that in the matter of demolition of an illegal construction only the owner can file objection. But in a case like the present one where the owner has not come forward, the tenants of the premises, which has been illegally constructed, have no right to contest the proceedings of demolition. 11. Under Section 27(1) of the Act, 1973 where the development work commenced or carried out in contravention of the master plan or zonal development plan or without the permission or approval or sanction of the competent authority, the Vice Chairman or any officer of the Development Authority empowered by him, may pass an order directing for removal of the development by the owner thereof or by the person at whose instance the development has been carried out. Section27(2) provides for a remedy of appeal against the order of demolition to an aggrieved person. 12. Submission is that the petitioners who are occupants of the shop in question have been inducted as tenants after the demolition order was passed under Section 27 of the Act. They are neither the owners nor the persons mentioned in Section 27 of the Act and as such they are not the necessary or proper party to the proceedings for demolition. They are neither the owners nor the persons mentioned in Section 27 of the Act and as such they are not the necessary or proper party to the proceedings for demolition. However, in order to give them an opportunity, the notice dated 7.10.2010 was issued. The demolition order dated 27.9.2001 was never challenged by the petitioner in appeal rather the appeal was filed against the notice dated 7.10.2010. The appeal under Section 27(2) lies against the order of demolition passed under sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act, 1973. The appeal itself was misconceived and has rightly been dismissed. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it appears from the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 27(2) of the Act that the notice dated 7.10.2010 was given to the petitioners who were inducted as tenants in the shop in question which was ordered to be demolished on 27.9.2001. There is no dispute about the fact that the shops in question exist on plot No. 59, Lajpatkung, Agra. The demolition order dated 27.9.2001 was passed against the owner who had constructed the shops illegally. He had never contested the matter rather alienated the property by execution of the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 had been made party in the appeal in view of the fact that he became owner of the disputed property during pendency of the proceeding. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 27.9.2001 does not relate to the shop of the petitioner, is not substantiated from the record. 15. A perusal of the order indicates that the finding has been recorded that on the basis of the records, that the demolition order dated 27.9.2001 was passed with regard to five shops which were shop Nos. 5 to 9. The petitioner's shop is shop No. 9 which is mentioned in the notice dated 7.10.2010 (appended as Annexure 3' to the writ petition). 16. It is not disputed by the petitioner that shop No. 9 as indicated in the notice dated 7.10.2010 is his shop. No such ground has been taken either in the present writ petition or in the memo of appeal. 17. 16. It is not disputed by the petitioner that shop No. 9 as indicated in the notice dated 7.10.2010 is his shop. No such ground has been taken either in the present writ petition or in the memo of appeal. 17. Moreover, the finding of fact recorded on the basis of records, cannot be interfered with in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. So far as the contention regarding affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is concerned, it is apparent from the records that the petitioner was called upon by the notice dated 7.10.2010 to come forward with the documents pertaining to his ownership or the permission to make constructions. 19. As the petitioner has failed to file the relevant documents to dispute the demolition order dated 27.9.2001, he cannot claim any relief in the appeal. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even if personal hearing has not been afforded to him. 20. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he was inducted as tenant in the disputed shop on 8.11.2001 by execution of a rent deed. Before the rent deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, the shop had already been ordered to be demolished. It appears that the fact of demolition of shop was suppressed by the then owner and the petitioners were duped. 21. It is further apparent that the petitioners have not been able to substantiate that the shop in question was constructed after sanction of the map by the Development Authority. The finding recorded by the appellate authority that the plot in question namely plot No. 59, Lajpatkunj, Agra is residential, as such the commercial constructions raised over the land in question were not compoundable, is not under challenge. 22. In totality facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, no infirmity is found in the order passed by the appellate authority. 23. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.