JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the tenant, challenging an order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority under The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act'), whereby her application under Section 28 of the Act has been rejected. 2. The petitioner, Smt. Fatima is a tenant in a shop situate in Churi Wali Gali, Mohalla Tansenganj, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur. Smt. Fatima shall hereinafter be called 'the tenant'. The original tenant in the shop was the tenant's husband and after his death, she has inherited the tenancy, where she claims to have a shop selling bangles. The landlady of the shop is Smt. Shahana Siddiqui, to whom the tenant pays rent at the rate of Rs.550/- per month. The current tenancy is there since the time of the former landlord, Kamal Ahmad Siddiqui. It is claimed on behalf of the tenant that the shop to the east of the demised shop collapsed during the rainy season of 2016, on account of which the eastern wall of the demised shop and a part of the lintel in the roof need repairs. The tenant has requested the landlady, respondent no.1 several times to get the demised shop repaired, but she did not oblige. Instead, the landlady flatly refused the request for repairs and threatened to get the shop vacated. Thereupon, the tenant sued for a permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sitapur seeking an injunction in terms that she may not be dispossessed from the demised shop otherwise than in due course of law. The said suit was numbered on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sitapur as O.S. No.615 of 2016, which is still pending. 3. It is the tenant's further case that the landlady has refused to accept rent since the month of January, 2020, whereupon it was remitted by money order on 22.09.2016. The money order was also refused. The tenant is depositing the rent in Court under Section 30 of the Act vide Misc. Case No. 147 of 2016. The said case is also pending. The tenant caused a notice to be served upon the landlady through her Counsel on 06.12.2017 to get the eastern wall of the demised shop repaired, which the landlady duly received. The tenant is depositing the rent in Court under Section 30 of the Act vide Misc. Case No. 147 of 2016. The said case is also pending. The tenant caused a notice to be served upon the landlady through her Counsel on 06.12.2017 to get the eastern wall of the demised shop repaired, which the landlady duly received. But, the landlady did not get any repairs carried out, nor did she answer the notice. Accordingly, the tenant made an application to the Prescribed Authority under Section 28 of the Act, with a prayer that the eastern wall of the demised shop, details of which were given at the foot of the application, together with the western part of the lintel in the roof and the other damages to the shop, may be permitted to be repaired and the expenses defrayed out of rent payable for the period of two years. 4. Objections to the said applications were filed on behalf of the landlady, saying that the demised shop is in a dilapidated condition and the entire building, of which it is a part, is dilapidated. A substantial part of the building has fallen down over the period of a year and a half. The tenant or her daughters are not doing any business and the demised shop is virtually a rubble. It is mentioned that on 06.01.2015, the adjoining shop's projection collapsed, leading to injury sustained by many. At that time, the eastern wall of the demised shop also collapsed. The projection of the demised shop collapsed during the rainy season. The tenant and her daughters are insistent upon getting the demised shop, which is dilapidated, reconstructed forcibly. The building, where the shop is, located is about 100-150 years old and a danger to human life. There are then some not very relevant pleadings to the proceedings in hand, that say that the tenant has purchased a premises on a road called Krishna Babu Wali Sarak, that includes a house and three shops. The tenant and her daughters carry on their business there. This property had been purchased in the names of the tenant's daughters through a registered sale deed dated 07.06.2016 from one Jagdish Prasad son of Munshi Lal. 5. The tenant and her daughters carry on their business there. This property had been purchased in the names of the tenant's daughters through a registered sale deed dated 07.06.2016 from one Jagdish Prasad son of Munshi Lal. 5. It has also figured on record that the landlady has been served a notice by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur, under Section 263(1) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, asking her to demolish the demised shop, which is dilapidated and a danger to human life and property. A copy of the said notice dated 26.02.2016 is on record as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. A commission was also issued by the Prescribed Authority before he decided the application under Section 28 of the Act by the order impugned. That report, though not very informative, broadly shows the demised property to be a dilapidated structure. The Prescribed Authority, vide the order impugned dated 10.08.2018, has rejected the tenant's application under Section 28 seeking permission to carry out repairs. 6. Aggrieved, this petition has been filed. 7. The Prescribed Authority has remarked that the tenant has not filed any estimate along with the application when according to Section 28 of the Act an estimate of the expenditure for the repairs is essential. The papers filed by the landlady include the notice that she had received from the Nagar Palika, asking her to demolish the shop as it was dilapidated and a danger to human life and property. The Prescribed Authority has particularly noticed that the competent Authority in the Nagar Palika, after due inspection, has passed orders, requiring the landlady to demolish the shop. It has been opined that the notice for demolition, that the landlady has received from the Nagar Palika, cannot be ignored. It has been observed that ignoring the report and permitting a repair of the shop would be taking a risk that does not appear to be worth its while. The premises are dilapidated and cannot be repaired, on account of which it has been directed to be demolished. It has also been noticed by the Prescribed Authority that there is threat to human life and property, if the shop is not demolished and permitted to be repaired. It is on these findings that the Prescribed Authority has rejected the application. 8. Heard Mr. R.D. Shahi, learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner along with Mr. It has also been noticed by the Prescribed Authority that there is threat to human life and property, if the shop is not demolished and permitted to be repaired. It is on these findings that the Prescribed Authority has rejected the application. 8. Heard Mr. R.D. Shahi, learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner along with Mr. Bahar Ali and Mr. U.S. Sahai and Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Jamal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents. 9. The learned Counsel for the tenant has impressed upon the Court that resistance by the landlady to the tenant's proposal and efforts to get the demised shop repaired is an effort to evict the tenant. The action of the landlady in thwarting the tenant's efforts to get the demised shop repaired at the latter's expense is a design and stratagem to get rid of the tenancy. Learned Counsel submits that even if the shop is demolished, the tenancy would not come to an end as the relationship of landlord and tenant would continue in respect of the underlying land. To the above end, learned Counsel for the tenant has relied upon a decision of this Court in Satya Prakash and others v. District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 2018 (1) AWC 877 (LB). In Satya Prakash (supra), it has been held : "15. If the landlord tenant relationship existed between the petitioners and the opposite party No. 3 and it continued even after the destruction of the roofed structure as also if the tenancy did not become automatically void on such destruction, then, proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, 1972 would be maintainable before the SCC Court. 16. The moot point is, did the tenancy continue even after destruction of roofed structure. The first and foremost question, therefore, is whether the 'building' which was the subject matter of tenancy existed on the date of notice of eviction as also initiation of proceedings under Section 20 of the Act, 1972 or not. Section 3(i) of the Act, 1972 defines building as under:- "3(i) "Building", means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes- (i) any land (including any garden), garages and out-houses, appurtenant to such building; (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building; (ii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;" 17. Building as defined aforesaid comprises of a roofed structure and obviously land underneath or land which it bounds with its walls. The inclusive part of the definition relates to land appurtenant and not underneath. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in a decision of State of U.P. and Ors. v. VIIth Additional District Judge and Others, 1992 (4) SCC 429 . The relevant extract of this judgment, which pertain to the Act, 1972, is quoted herein below:- "7. In any case, the definition of 'building' under the Act clearly shows that the building thereunder means roofed structure including the land underneath the said structure. Inclusive part of the definition only relates to the land appurtenant to such building and not to the land underneath the roofed structure." 18. Generally speaking also the term 'building' includes the ground on which it stands as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of D.G. Gose and Co. v. State of Kerala reported in MANU/SC/0330/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 410 , wherein the term 'lands and buildings' was under consideration in the context of Entry 49 of List II Schedule-VII of the Constitution. Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of which read as under:- "21. The word "building" has been defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as follows: That which is built; a structure, edifice: now a structure of the nature of a house built where it is to stand. Entry 49 therefore includes the site of the building as its component part. That, if we may say so, inheres in the concept or the ordinary meaning of the expression "building". 22. A somewhat similar point arose for consideration in Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island with reference to the meaning of the word "building" occurring in Section 197(1) of the Statutes of British Columbia, 1914. It was held that the word must receive its natural and ordinary meaning as "including the fabric of which it is composed, the ground upon which its walls stand and the ground embraced within those walls". That appears to us to be the correct meaning of "building". 23. It was held that the word must receive its natural and ordinary meaning as "including the fabric of which it is composed, the ground upon which its walls stand and the ground embraced within those walls". That appears to us to be the correct meaning of "building". 23. The Act contains its own definition of what is meant by "building", and Clause (e) of Section 2 is to the following effect: (e) "building" means a house, outhouse, garage, or any other structure or part thereof, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material, but does not include any portable shelter or any shed constructed principally of mud, bamboos, leaves, grass or thatch or a latrine which is not attached to the main structure. There are two explanations to the clause, but they are not relevant for the controversy before us. The definition therefore makes it quite clear that as a house, outhouse, garage or any other structure cannot be erected without the ground on which it is to stand, the expression "building" includes, the fabric of which it is composed, the ground upon which its walls stand and the ground within those walls. It is equally clear that the ground referred to above would not have a separate existence, apart from the building, and would not be "lands" jointly stated with "buildings" as the subject-matter of the tax in entry 49 of List II. In other words, the "ground" referred to above would not be the subject-matter of a separate tax, apart from the tax on the building standing on it." 19. The case of Corporation of the City of Victoria v. Bishop of Vancouver Island referred in the aforesaid judgment is reported in AIR 1921 PC 240 . The same view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in a judgment reported in MANU/KE/0021/1995 : AIR 1995 Kerala 99; V. Kalpakam Amma v. Muthurama Iyer and another case reported in MANU/KE/0012/1991 : AIR 1991 Kerala 55; George J. Ovungal v. Peter. 20. In view of the above discussion, it is not in dispute that 'building' as defined in Section 3(i) of the Act, 1972 not only includes the structure constructed over the land but also the land over which it is constructed. It also includes the land appurtenant to the structure." 10. 20. In view of the above discussion, it is not in dispute that 'building' as defined in Section 3(i) of the Act, 1972 not only includes the structure constructed over the land but also the land over which it is constructed. It also includes the land appurtenant to the structure." 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents emphasized that the question here is not about seeking eviction of the tenant, but abating a danger to human life and property, which the dilapidated building has become. The demolition notice issued by the Nagar Palika after due inspection, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, is warrant enough to believe that the demised shop is no longer fit for human habitation or use. 11. At the hearing of this petition before this Court, there was much contention between parties, if indeed the demised shop was so dilapidated that it was beyond repair. The said question is a pure question of fact and the Prescribed Authority having taken a plausible view of the matter on facts and evidence to hold that the demised shop is so dilapidated that it is beyond repair and a danger to human life, this Court need not examine the question further. Considering, however, the fact that it is the cynosure of all contentions between parties, whether the demised shop is indeed so dilapidated that it cannot be repaired, this Court though it fit to issue a commission to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sitapur vide order dated 02.12.2021, requiring him to ascertain whether the shop in dispute is dilapidated beyond redemption. It was also directed that the learned Civil Judge would have the assistance of a competent Civil Engineer from the local establishment of the PWD at Sitapur and the entire proceedings of the commission would be photographed and videographed. 12. The learned Civil Judge executed our commission on 08.12.2021, maintaining an order-sheet of the proceedings from 04.12.2021 to 08.12.2021 very punctiliously. The commission too was executed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sitapur, Mr. Pramod Singh Yadav with great industry, care and ability. He inspected the demised shop from within and without as also from the roof top, which appears from his report to have been a considerably perilous venture. The commission too was executed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Sitapur, Mr. Pramod Singh Yadav with great industry, care and ability. He inspected the demised shop from within and without as also from the roof top, which appears from his report to have been a considerably perilous venture. He had with him an Executive Engineer from the Public Works Department, Sitapur, besides a photographer, who captured both stills and videos of the demised shop and the building of which it is a part. The photographs are annexed as Annexures 10 to 20 to the learned Civil Judge's commission report. There is a separate C.D. also submitted, which gives a more 'live' and 'realistic' picture of the condition that the demised shop and the building housing it is in. The relevant part of the commission report submitted by the learned Civil Judge must be quoted in some of its relevant detail. There is a separate C.D. also submitted, which gives a more 'live' and 'realistic' picture of the condition that the demised shop and the building housing it is in. The relevant part of the commission report submitted by the learned Civil Judge must be quoted in some of its relevant detail. It reads : ^^oknxzLr nqdku dh Nr ds fujh{k.k ds mijkar esjs }kjk nqdku ds vanj dh nhokj v{kjkafdr BC, CD rFkk DG dk fujh{k.k djus dk Á;kl fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ;g ik;k x;k fd nqdku ds vanj dh nhokj v{kjkafdr BC, CD rFkk DG lkeus ls ugha fn[k jgh Fkh cfYd mlds fdukjs&fdukjs ydM+h o yksgs dh jSd esa nqdku dk leku j[kk FkkA leku gVok dj ns[kus ij nhokj dk dqN va'k ¼dqN bZaVsa½ fn[kkbZ fn;k tks fcuk IykLVj dk FkkA ohfM;ks lh0Mh0 layXud la0 22 esa 15%00 feuV ls 15%12 feuV rd nqdku ds vanj ls nhokj ds va'k dks fn[kk;k x;k gSA oknxzLr nqdku ds Åij jksM dh rjQ uhys jax dh IykfLVd dh iUuh yxh Fkh ftls gVokdj nqdku dh nhokj v{kjkafdr AB ds Åij dh nhokj ¼ftlds ckjs esa Jherh Q+kfrek ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk crk;k x;k fd mDr nhokj dh ejEer ds fy, gh muds }kjk U;k;ky; esa eqdnek fd;k x;k gS½ ns[kh x;h tks nqdku ds ckgj ls Hkh fn[k jgh Fkh rFkk ns[kus ls vR;ar ttZj voLFkk esa Fkh rFkk mlds vk/kkj ij ;gh fu"d"kZ fudy jgk gS fd nhokj v{kjkafdr BC, CD rFkk DG Hkh ttZj voLFkk esa gSA uD'kk deh'ku esa nf’kZr Hkqtk AB ds Åij dh nhokj dks QksVksxzkQ+ layXud 13]14]15]16 rFkk 17 esa v{kj PQRS ls rFkk Vhu 'ksM dsk v{kj T ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gSA vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark ih0MhCyw0Mh0 lhrkiqj }kjk Hkh esjs funsZ'k ij nqdku ds vanj ls nhokj v{kjkafdr BC dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark ih0MCyw0Mh0 lhrkiqj }kjk Hkh viuh tkapk vk[;k Ásf"kr dh x;h gS tks layXud la09 ds #i esa layXu gSA deh'ku dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku rS;kj LikWV eseks] uD'kk deh'ku] vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark ih0MCyw0Mh0 lhrkiqj dh tkap vk[;k e; i=] QksVksxzkQ ¼dqy 12½ rFkk ohfM;ks fjdkWfMZax dh lh0Mh0 vkSj fn0 04@12@2021 dks deh'ku ds le; rS;kj LIkkWV eseks] ftldh ewy Áfr ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks Ásf"kr dh tk pqdh gS] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fn0 02@12@2021 e; bZ&esy i= dh Áfr] dEI;wVj foHkkx tnin U;k;ky; lhrkiqj ls ÁkIr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fn0 07@12@2021 dh Áekf.kr Áfr rFkk vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark ih0MCyw0Mh0 lhrkiqj dk i= fn0 08@12@2021 dh Áfr deh'ku vk[;k dk Hkkx gSaA lexz #i ls oknxzLr nqdku dk fujh{k.k djus ij v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk ;g ik;k x;k fd oknxzLr nqdku fcuk iDdh Nr ds gS vkSj vR;ar ttZj voLFkk esa gS ftlij Vhu 'ksM iM+k gS rFkk mlds Åij bZaV dk eyck iM+k gS vkSj taxyh isM+ dh Mky vkSj csy iM+h gSA oknxzLr nqdku dh Nr dks Vhu 'ksM ls lgkjk fn;k x;k gSA uD'kk deh'ku esa nf'kZr oknxzLr nqdku dh nhokj v{kjkafdr BC, CD rFkk DG lkeus ls ugha fn[k jgh Fkha A mldks yksgs vkSj ydM+h dh jSd ls ?ksjk x;k gSA oknxzLr nqdku dh nhokj v{kjkafdr AB ds Åij dh nhokj fn[k jgh Fkh tks vR;ar ttZj voLFkk esa gS rFkk mlds vk/kkj ij ;gh fu"d"kZ fudy jgk gS fd nhokj v{kjkafdr BC, CD rFkk DG Hkh ttZj voLFkk esa gS rFkk iwjh nqdku dk Vhu ,oa yksgs rFkk ydM+h ds Qzse dk likVZ nsdj pyk;k tk jgk gSA vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark ih0MhCyw0Mh0 lhrkiqj dh tkap vk[;k e; i= layxzd la0 9 ds vuqlkj ^^ftl fcfYMax esa ;g nqdku gS og iw.kZr% th.kZ'kh.kZ voLFkk esa gS ,oa iwjh fcfYMax ,oa nqdku ds Åij dksbZ iDdh Nr ugha gSA nqdku Vhu ds Qzse esa pykbZ tk jgh gSA vr% ;g fcfYMax iwjh rjg /oLr djus ;ksX; gS vU;Fkk dh fLFkfr esa nq?kZVuk ,oa tkueky dk [krjk Hkh igqWap ldrk gSA** v/kksgLrk{kjh oknxzLr nqdku ds ttZj voLFkk esa gksus ds ckcr vf/k'kklh vfHk;ark dh mDr vk[;k ls iw.kZr;k lger gS rFkk deh'ku dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku fd, x, fujh{k.k ds vk/kkj ij v/kksgLrk{kjh dk ;g fu"d"kZ gS fd oknxzLr nqdku ttZj voLFkk esa gS rFkk vxzsrj ;g bruh ttZj voLFkk esa gS fd ;g ekuo thou rFkk tkueky ds fy, [krjukd gSA** 13. The above report does not spare a grain of doubt that the demised shop is a public nuisance and a serious hazard to human life and property in its vicinity. It is already under a statutory demolition notice issued by the Nagar Palika. It has been spared demolition because of the interim order passed by this Court. After looking into the report of the commission and the photographs, this Court is, indeed, surprised that the tenant seeks to prevent, by asking for repairs of the said shop, demolition of a building that may imperil her own life or those of her family members. This Court finds the stand of the tenant very unreasonable and very unfair. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the landlady's stand in the present proceedings is one to secure the tenant's eviction. The state and condition of the demised shop is abominable and a towering threat to one and all in the vicinity. The Nagar Palika ought to take immediate steps to carry out its statutory duty in the larger public interest and raise down the demised shop, including the entire dilapidated structure of which it is a part. Of course, demolition has to be carried out, if it has to be done by the Nagar Palika, strictly in accordance with law and after hearing affected parties, but at the same time, not stretching the processes to an extent that the mischief, that is sought to be remedied, comes true. 14. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. It is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/- payable by the tenant to the first respondent-landlady. The interim order dated 28.08.2018 is hereby vacated. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Judge, Small Cause Court, Sitapur and the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur by the Senior Registrar.