Judgment:
Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are tenants of accommodation in question have challenged the order dated 27th January, 2006, passed by the appellate authority, under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') whereby the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord against the order of the prescribed authority under the Act dated 30th August, 2003 by which release application filed by the landlord was dismissed by prescribed authority, the copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 3 Smt. Hema Agrawal filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act before the prescribed authority for release of the accommodation in question in her favour on the ground that the petitioners-tenants are residing on the first floor portion of the accommodation in question, which is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction and further that the condition of the accommodation in question is so toad as if it is not demolished and re-constructed then it will damage the life of the people who are living in it. The landlord further asserted that she has sufficient funds for demolition and re-construction of the accommodation in question apart from the sanctioned map from the local body concerned it is further asserted that the tenants are not vacating the said portion of the accommodation in question as they want some heavy amount as pagri (premium) from the landlord.
3. The petitioners-tenants denied the allegations made in the aforesaid application filed by the landlord and stated that earlier his father Daya Ram was the tenant of the accommodation in question and after his death, he is in occupation of the same. It is further asserted by the tenant that earlier Smt. Kailashi Devi wife of Raghvendra Kripal was the landlord, but later on Smt. Hema Agrawal has purchased this accommodation to which the tenant has no knowledge and that in the application under Section 21(1)(b) of 'the Act' the landlord has not mentioned about the other tenants and also as to how many tenants are on the first floor. It has been further asserted by the tenants that on the ground floor, there are four shops in which the tenants are doing their business and the construction on the ground floor as well as on the first floor are in good condition, it is not correct that the accommodation in dispute may fall down. The tenants further stated that earlier Smt. Kailashi Devi, who was earlier landlord of the accommodation in question, had also filed similar application in the year 1990, but due to intervention of some people of the locality, the matter has been compromised as Smt. Kailashi Devi stated that she has got enhanced the rate of rent from Rs. 18.75 to Rs. 50 per month in which it was also agreed that the rent will not be enhanced in future. The tenants further asserted that first application was filed in the year 1990 and the present application has been filed in the year 2001, about eleven years have elapsed but till date no portion of the accommodation in question fallen down. The landlord reiterated that the tenants only want some heavy amount as pagri, hence the submissions made by the tenants are totally false, as they are not responsible for loss of life of the people.
4. Before the prescribed authority after the exchange of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the prescribed authority found that the petitioners are the tenants of the accommodation in question and Smt. Hema Agrawal is the landlord, as Smt. Kailashi Devi was the mother-in-law of Smt. Hema Agrawal, as is evident from receipts of House Tax and Water Tax Issued by Nagar Nigam concerned. The prescribed authority further found that survey report submitted by the landlord is incorrect and further that before filing of the application under Section 21(1)(b) of 'the Act', the landlord had not prepared the estimated expenses, which is in contravention of Rule 17 of 'the Act'. The prescribed authority also found that the landlord has not complied with the bye-laws etc. for raising new construction after demolition. The prescribed authority arrived at the conclusion that the accommodation in question is not in dilapidated condition and no estimate of the value of the new construction has been given necessary map has been filed In accordance with the rule as contemplated under Rule 17 of 'the Act', therefore vide order dated 30th August, 2003, rejected the application filed by the landlord.
5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 30th August, 2003, the landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of 'the Act' before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and the pleadings and evidence on record found that appellant-plaintiff is the landlord as held by the prescribed authority and the tenants also not disputed this aspect of the matter because the tenants themselves admitted that they are regularly paying the rent to the landlord. The appellate authority further found that the Amin report, which is on record in the form of paper No. 26G/1, has not been considered by the prescribed authority, who has submitted a report that the accommodation in question is in dilapidated condition and the photographs submitted by the tenants also prove it to be true. A notice to this effect was also issued by Nagar Palika concerned. It further found that since Amin after inspecting the spot has submitted in its report that at the time of inspection there were only some domestic goods and has not reported about the tenants, therefore, it will presume that the tenants are not residing in the accommodation in question because of dilapidated condition of the accommodation in question and further that the map and estimated value submitted by the landlord has not been considered by the prescribed authority and rejected the same only on technical ground. The appellate court held that the finding of the prescribed authority that since no date is mentioned on the map prepared by the landlord, therefore on the basis of it, it cannot be presumed that the map was prepared before filing of the application, is not correct as the map was very much on record and also with regard to financial capacity of the landlord, the prescribed authority has not looked into and since the landlord has not given any undertaking that after re-construction, the tenanted portion will be given to the tenants, therefore application is not maintainable, is also incorrect as after re-construction of the accommodation in question, the tenants can file an application to get the same on rent. The appellate authority vide order dated 27th January, 2006, have allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and set aside the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority, thus this writ petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants try to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority suffer from the manifest error of law, but has failed to demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the appellate authority in any way either perverse, or are suffering from the manifest error of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants further submitted that the view taken by the appellate authority are such on which no reasonable person can come. The aforesaid contention of learned Counsel for the tenant cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash : AIR2004SC3892 , wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court will not appreciate evidence like an appellate court by re-appreciating or re-evaluating the evidence while exercising supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Lastly, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that since the tenants are residing in the accommodation in question, therefore he may be granted reasonable time to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the Interest of justice, I direct that the petitioners-tenants shall not be evicted from the accommodation in question pursuant to the impugned order till 30th October. 2006, provided:
(1) petitioners-tenants furnish an undertaking before the prescribed authority within one month from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlord on or before 30th October, 2006; and
(2) petitioners-tenants pay to the landlord or deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages, if not already paid to the landlord or deposited before the prescribed authority, at the rate of rent till date within one month from today and continues to pay or deposit the same by first week of every succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till 30th October, 2006, whichever is earlier. The landlord will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited by the petitioners-tenants.
(3) in the event of default of any of the conditions referred to above, it will be open to the respondent-landlord to get the order executed.
8. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated, However, there will be no order as to costs.