Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2788 (ALL)

Girish Chandra Gupta v. Rizwan Ahmad

2016-08-11

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard Shri Atul Dayal, and Shri Manish Tandon, learned counsels for the petitioners in the two connected writ petitions. 2. Both the writ petitions relate to the same premises and the controversy raised herein are identical and hence they have been heard and are being decided together by this common judgment and order. 3. These writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the Rent Control Authorities in proceedings arising out of the applications under Section 21(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1972'), moved against two tenants by the respondent-landlord. 4. The release applications were filed with regard to House No.321 Harrisganj, Rail Bazar, Kanpur Nagar on the ground that the said house is more than 100 years old and is not habitable. It is in dilapidated condition and there is imminent danger to the life of the inhabitants, neighbours and passer-by. The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the building has not outlived its life rather it can exist in the same state with minor repairs over the next 40 years. 5. The landlord in order to substantiate his plea has filed Engineer's Report. The tenant also rebutted the report by producing a rival report of the Engineer. 6. The Courts below have recorded the findings of fact to the effect that the house in question is more than 100 years old, it is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition. In compliance of Rule 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972, it was recorded that the map for reconstruction of the building was got prepared by the landlord in consonance with the conditions of sanction of map by the Development Authority. The landlord possessed financial capacity to demolish and reconstruct the house. As the landlord had agreed to hand over the new construction to the outgoing tenants it was provided by the Prescribed Authority that the tenants shall hand over the vacant possession of their tenement to the landlord within two months. 7. In case, the tenant failed to vacate the tenement, it would be open for the applicant to obtain possession through the process of the Court. 7. In case, the tenant failed to vacate the tenement, it would be open for the applicant to obtain possession through the process of the Court. It was, further, directed that the applicant-landlord shall construct the new building within one year from the date of getting possession and shall deliver possession to the tenant of the newly constructed tenement in proportion of the accommodation which is occupied by the tenant. In case of default, the tenant would be entitled to the damages @ Rs.500/- per month. This order was affirmed in appeal. 8. Challenging the release orders, the submission of learned counsels for the petitioners is that the Engineer's Report, which have been relied upon by the Court below to record the finding that the house in question is in dilapidated condition, was not prepared after spot inspection of the tenement in possession of the petitioners. The tenant has categorically pleaded before the Court below that the tenement which is in his occupation was not inspected by the Engineer from inside. The house in question is in habitable condition and the findings of dilapidated condition are perverse. 9. In the connected Writ Petition No.62088 of 2013 (Girish Chandra Gupta v. Rizwan Admad & 3 Ors.), Shri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 21(1)(b) has been filed with the sole intention to evict the tenant for all time to come. 10. In the release application, the landlord has set up his personal need for the building in question. The map which was got prepared by the landlord does not specify the tenement which is required to be handed over to the outgoing tenant/petitioners after reconstruction of the building. In fact, the condition put by the Prescribed Authority for re-entry of the tenant was impossible to achieve as there is no provision for separate tenements to be handed over to the tenants. The undertaking given by the landlord reduced to the condition imposed by the Courts below, securing re-entry of the tenant is not going to be complied with in the near future. 11. Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the dilapidated condition of the building does not mean that there is likelihood of immediate collapse of the building. 11. Mrs. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the dilapidated condition of the building does not mean that there is likelihood of immediate collapse of the building. The building should not be on the verge of collapse for treating it to be in dilapidated condition. 12. The Courts below after examining the evidence on record have recorded their satisfaction with regard to the Engineer's Report submitted by the respondent-landlord to come to the conclusion that the building required demolition and reconstruction. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below are not to be disturbed lightly as there are no reasons warranting such interference. 13. Even if other view is possible, this Court may not interfere to come to a different conclusion in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in the Case of Smt. Kamla Devi v. Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional District Judge/Prescribed Authority, Ghaziabad & Others and in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11413 of 1991 (Ramesh Chandra & Others v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Aligarh & Others), decided on 9.1.1995. It is, further, stated that there was sufficient evidence on record before the Courts below to conclude that the building required demolition and reconstruction. 15. As far as the arguments of learned counsel for the parties regarding providing of adequate space/tenement after reconstruction is concerned, the submission is that the said fact has been taken care of by the Court below in the case of Girish Chandra Gupta (supra) with regard to the building in question. 16. It is categorically recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the constructions have been proposed by the landlord with regard to the tenement which is to be handed over to the tenants after reconstruction. The tenants are entitled to enter in the newly constructed tenement as per the terms and conditions prescribed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 1972. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is evident from the record that Engineers namely J.N. Dubey & Associates have filed their report that the house in question is more than 100 years old and has outlived its life. This condition is causing threat for the inhabitants, neighbours and the passer-by. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is evident from the record that Engineers namely J.N. Dubey & Associates have filed their report that the house in question is more than 100 years old and has outlived its life. This condition is causing threat for the inhabitants, neighbours and the passer-by. Another Engineer who gave report in favour of the petitioners has not given details with regard to the condition of the building. Moreover, the applicant's Engineer's Report has been challenged by the petitioner only on the ground that it was given without inspection of the tenement in occupation of Girish Chandra Gupta from inside. There is no such challenge in the case of Shukh Deo v. Rizwan Ahmad & 3 Others being Writ Petition No.62086 of 2013 in this regard who is also one of the tenant in the building in question. 18. Even if the argument of learned counsels for the petitioners that the tenement in question was not inspected from inside is 2013(1) ADJ 498 accepted, the general condition of the building narrated in the Engineer's Report cannot be ignored which goes to prove that the entire building is in dilapidated condition. 19. The conclusion drawn by the Courts below is sufficient to conclude that the Engineer has given correct details regarding dilapidated condition of the building. Moreover, the findings of fact recorded by the Court below on the basis of admissible evidence on record is not lightly to be interfered with by this Court. 20. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below regarding the dilapidated condition of the building is not open to judicial review. 21. As far as the claim of the petitioners regarding their re-entry is concerned, the landlord before the Court below has come out with the plea that he has made provision for re-entry of the tenants in the newly constructed building and, further, he has identified the portion in the same ratio, which is occupied by the tenants, in the proposed map itself. 22. The right to re-entry has been provided to the tenant in accordance with the provisions under Section 24(2) of the Act, 1972. As the interest of the tenants is safeguarded, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. 23. 22. The right to re-entry has been provided to the tenant in accordance with the provisions under Section 24(2) of the Act, 1972. As the interest of the tenants is safeguarded, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. 23. On the argument of the learned counsels for the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to raise a presumption that the landlord would not abide by the condition, put by the Prescribed Authority while passing the eviction order. Almost six years have passed and the landlord could not get vacant possession of the building so as to demolish and reconstruct it which is posing danger to the inhabitants as also for the neighbours. The life of people cannot be put in jeopardy on account of trivial issues raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners. 24. The last submission of learned counsels for the petitioners is that the landlord in the release application filed against Girish Chandra Gupta has set up his bona fide need as he has no intention to hand over the new construction or tenement to the petitioners. 25. This submission is not substantiated from the record as the release application has proceeded by both the Courts below on the grounds available under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, 1972. 26. From each angle, this Court does not find any justification to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Moreover, the tenants right of reentry have been substantially protected by the Prescribed Authority by providing the period for vacation of the building and, further, for handing over possession of the new construction to the tenant as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 1972. The conditions so put by the Prescribed Authority under the judgment and order dated 27.10.2010 are reasonable and require no interference. 27. In any view of the matter, both the writ petitions are found devoid of merits and are dismissed as such. Petition dismissed.