AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri A.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Petitioner''s suit for ejectment on the ground of structural alteration under Section 20(2)(c) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") was dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment dated 02.04.2008 and the said judgment has been confirmed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bijnor by dismissing petitioner''s Revision No. 09 of 2008 vide judgment dated 31.08.2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Act, 1972 is not applicable in the case in hand since property in dispute is situated in Village Mikarpur Khema alias Bukhara, District Bijnor but could not dispute the fact that as per the notification No. 7352/29E5573 dated 30.04.1973 the remote areas within three kilometers from the municipal limits would be such where Act, 1972 would apply. It is not stated anywhere that village in question is not within three kilometers of municipal limit and it is not governed by notification dated 30.04.1973, which is a finding recorded by Revisional Court in para 13 of the judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not demonstrate that alteration, if any, meant have resulted in diminishing the value of property in question or its utility or disfigured it which the petitionerlandlord failed to prove. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact on this aspect against petitioner and it has not been shown perverse or contrary to record warranting interfere in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The scope of judicial review in these matter under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others), decided on 30.07.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.
I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.