Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1065 of 1982. Case: Jokhan Vs The District Judge and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1065 of 1982 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G.C. Saxena and R.S. Parihar, Advs. and For Respondents: J.N. Misra and V.S. Saxena, Advs. |
| Judges | K.M. Dayal, J. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1), 22; Municipalities Act - Section 278; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - Rule 17 |
| Citation | 1982 AWC 549 |
| Judgement Date | May 20, 1982 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
K.M. Dayal, J.
-
This writ petition has been filed by a tenant against an order of eviction passed in respect of his accommodation by the appellate authority. The application was filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The landlord claimed that the disputed accommodation was in a dilapidated condition and he wanted to construct it a new.
-
The Prescribed Authority came to a finding that requirements of Rule 17 framed under the Act aforesaid were not complied with and consequently the application was liable to be rejected. The appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act, reversed the judgment and held that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The requirements of Rule 17 were complied with and the Petitioner was liable to be evicted.
-
The Appellate Authority has relied upon a notice issued by the Municipal Board under Section 278 of the Municipalities Act. He has not given any finding on the evidence adduced by the parties. The notice issued by the Municipal Board is not final and no finding can be given on the basis of the same that the disputed accommodation was in a dilapidated or dangerous condition. It is based merely on the opinion of the Board. The notice is not conclusive. It is just an averment. The authorities should have given the findings on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. There was no material on the record to show that the disputed premises were in a dilapidated condition. The other argument of the learned Counsel was about the compliance of provisions of Rule 17. So far as the sanction and plan was concerned, one plan was filed by the landlord...
To continue reading
Request your trial