Vishal Chand vs Vth Addl. District Judge and Another

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—The petitioner is landlord of the premises in dispute. The building in dispute is claimed to be about 200 years old.

Petitioner-landlord filed an application u/s 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972'') for release of the premises on the ground that it was in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority after considering the material and evidence on record.

Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the tenant filed Rent Control Appeal No. 9 of 1997 which has been dismissed with the condition that the petitioner-landlord will re-construct the building within a period of one year and three months and will hand-over the same area to the tenant which was under his tenancy earlier. The operative portion of the order is as under:

12- bl lEcU/k esa loZizFke ;g Li"V djuk mYys[kuh; gksxk fd vkosnd@mRrjnkrk dks tks ekufp= Lohd`r djkuk gS] mlesa uofuekZ.k eaas ls bruk gh {ks=Qy] dkjisV ,fj;k dk izko/kku gks ftruk fd orZeku le; es vihykFkhZ dh fdjk;snkjh esa gS A vihykFkhZ dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd og uo fuekZ.k ds mijkUr /kkjk 24] m0iz0 vf/kfu;e la0 13@72 ds vUrZxr~ iqu% fufeZr ifjlj ds fdjk;s ds fu/kkZj.k ds fy, fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh@l{ke vf/kdkjh ds ;gkaW izkFkZuki= izLrqr djs tks fdjk;s dh nj dk fu/kkZj.k djsxs A ;g Hkh Li"V djuk vko;''d gksxk fd vkosnd@mRrjnkrk fookfnr ifjlj dks fueqZfDr dk dksbZ nq:i;ksx u dj lds vr% blds fy, ;g vfuok;Z gksxk fd og ,d fuf''pr le; lhek ds vanj fookfnr ifjlj dk uofuekZ.k dj ns vFkkZr~ uo fuekZ.k ds fy, uD''kk ikl djkus o fookfnr LFky ds LFkku ij tks Hkwry ij uo fuekZ.k ds fy, mls ,d o"kZ rhu ekg dk le; i;kZIr gksxk vkSj vkosnd@mRrjnkrk ds fy, ;g vfuok;Z gksxk fd og fookfnr ifjlj dk uofuekZ.k izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij djk;s A mijksDr la''kks/kuks ds lkFk vihy [kf.M+r gksus ;ksX; gSA

vkns''k

vihykFkhZ ckys''oj dqekj dh ;g vihy mRrjnkrk fo''kkypan ds fo:) fu.kZ; esa mYysf[kr funs''kksa ds v/khu [kf.Mr dh tkrh gS A okn dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa i{kdkj viuk&viuk okn O;; Loa; ogu djsxs A vihykFkhZ dk fdjk;snkjh dk vf/kdkj lekIr ugh gqvk gS blfy, og fdlh {kfriwfrZ dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugh gS] cfYd mls /kkjk 24] mRrj izns''k vf/kfu;e la0 13@72 ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djus dk vf/kdkj gksxk A

g0 vLi"V �ds0 ih0 jktoa''kh� vij ftyk U;k;k/kh''k d{k ua0 5 lgkjuiqj

Aggrieved by the aforesaid condition, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant has not handed over possession of the premises, in dispute which is in his possession. He further states that the limitation for re-construction of the building in dispute would run from the date of handing over possession of the tenanted accommodation to the landlord.

Sri P.K. Jain counsel for the respondents states that the landlord himself has instituted Suit No. 85 of 2001, Vishal Chand v. Baleshwar in which an interim injunction has been granted for maintaining the status quo.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid suit is in respect of Malwa hence this has nothing to do with the possession.

After hearing the submissions of counsels for the parties, I am afraid that the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the order of status quo passed in Suit No. 85 of 2001 will not affect the proceedings is not correct as unless Malwa is not removed building cannot be reconstructed, hence the landlord cannot plead that he has got the order of status quo on the one hand and on the other that he has not been able to get possession of the tenanted accommodation for purpose of reconstruction.

Since the tenant is ready to hand over possession of the tenanted accommodation to the landlord even today, it is upon the landlord to reconstruct the building and hand over possession to the tenant within the prescribed period as directed in the impugned order.

In my opinion, the order of status quo will not come in the way as the tenant has agreed to hand over possession of the tenanted accommodation to the landlord who has agreed to reconstruct the same and comply with the order dated 5.12.2000 impugned in the writ petition.

Accordingly, it is directed that the tenant will hand over possession of the tenanted accommodation to the landlord on 20.2.2007 in front of two witnesses of the concerned locality and in presence of Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station. Rest of the conditions regarding Section 24 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as contained in operative portion in paragraph 12 of the impugned order shall remain unchanged. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions disposed of. No order as to costs.