Non­Reportable

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3895­3896 OF 2019       (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.35494­95 OF 2017)

Ram Prakash & Anr.      ..Appellants

            Versus

Puttan Lal & Ors.                                               ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 and 11.08.2017 passed

by  the High Court  of  Uttarakhand at  Nainital in  Writ  Petition

(M/S) No.5459 of 2001 and Review Application No.877 of 2016

respectively, the original defendants/tenants have preferred the

present appeals.

1

3. Respondent No.1 herein­landlord  filed an application

under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Act

(hereinafter  referred  to as  ‘the Act’) for  release of the building

from the father of the appellant herein (Late Guru Charan Lal)

who was a tenant in respect of two rooms with veranda on the

back side on the lowest storey and the husband of Appellant No.2

(Late Roshan Lal) was tenant in respect of another portion of the

property on the same floor. It was stated that the building is in a

dilapidated condition. A bonafide requirement of the landlord was

also  pleaded,  however,  subsequently the landlord  gave  up  the

plea of  bonafide requirement under Section 21(1)(a)  of the Act

and contested the eviction petition only on the ground that the

building is in dilapidated condition under Section 21(1)(b) of the

Act. That the learned Prescribed Authority, Almora rejected the

release application filed by the landlord.  

3.1 Being aggrieved with the Order passed by the learned

Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No.7

of 1998 under Section 22 of the Act before the learned District

Judge, Almora. That vide Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2001,

the learned District Judge, Almora rejected the appeal filed by the

2

landlord holding that the building is not in a dilapidated

condition and it does not require demolition and reconstruction.

Being aggrieved with the Order  passed by  the  learned District

Judge in confirming the Order passed by the Prescribed

Authority, the landlord filed Writ Petition No.5459 of 2001 before

the High Court. By Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2014, the

High Court allowed the said Writ Petition and ordered eviction of

the appellants herein­tenants. That thereafter, the Review

Application was preferred by the appellants herein which came to

be dismissed by the High Court. That thereafter, the appellants

filed SLP (C) Nos.442­443 of 2015 before this Court. Vide order

dated 30.01.2015, this Court granted the leave and set aside the

Orders  dated  25.08.2014 and 20.11.2014 passed by the  High

Court and remanded back the matter to the High Court to decide

the same in accordance with law. That thereafter, on remand, by

impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has allowed the

said Writ Petition preferred by the landlord releasing the building

in question under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. That thereafter, the

appellants herein­tenants preferred Review Application. The same

came to be dismissed vide  impugned Order dated 11.08.2017.

Hence the present appeals.

3

4. We have heard learned Advocates appeared on behalf

of the respective parties at length. We have also reappreciated the

entire evidences on record, more particularly, the evidences

which came to be considered by the High Court while passing the

impugned Judgment and Order. From the material on record, it

appears that the landlord relied upon the deposition of one Shri

B. C. Joshi, Town Planning Engineer and also the notice issued

by the Corporation in support of their case that building is in a

dilapidated condition and  is required to be re­constructed.  On

the other hand, the appellants­tenants seem to have relied upon

the deposition of one Shri B. S. Rautela, Civil Engineer as well as

one Shri P. C. Joshi, retired Assistant Engineer of PWD in

support of their case that the building was in sound condition

and does not require re­construction. However, according to the

tenants, if some repair is  done, in that case, the  building in

question can be in a habitable condition. Learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the tenants has stated at the Bar that the

appellants­tenants are ready and willing to repair  the building

occupied  by them at their own  cost.  On  the  other  hand, the

learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents­landlord

has opposed the above and has submitted that there is an

4

imminent danger and the condition of the building is such that it

can fall down at any time.  

5.  Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf

of the respective parties and considering the material on record

and the different opinions/Reports and even considering the fact

that the notice was issued by the Nagar Palika, Almora in the

year 1996/1997 stating that the building was in a dilapidated

condition and therefore the same is required to be demolished

and still even after period of approximately 24 years, the building

stands and as the tenants are ready and  willing to get the

building in question repaired at their own cost and the same is

not to be deducted from the rent, we are of the opinion that one

opportunity is required to  be given to the tenants to get the

building repaired.  

6. Hence, the present appeals are disposed of by

permitting the appellants­tenants to get the building in question

repaired at their own cost and the tenants shall not claim any

adjustment of the expenses incurred over repairing from the rent

to be paid and the appellants­tenants to get the building repaired

at their own cost within the period of six months from today. We

5

direct that thereafter, the appropriate Town Planning Authority of

the Corporation, to inspect the building in question and consider

whether still the building is in a dilapidated condition and

requires re­construction or not. If it is found that after the repairs

are carried out the building is safe, in that case, nothing further

is required to be done. However, if it is found by the appropriate

authority that  even after repair, the  building is in  dilapidated

condition and requires re­construction, the authority may

communicate their decision/Report further after inspection and

giving opportunity to both the parties, and thereafter, it will be

open for the landlord to initiate appropriate proceedings for

release/eviction before the competent authority/court, which

shall consider the same in accordance with law and on its own

merits. With the above observations, the present appeals stand

disposed of.   

……………………………….J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi; ……………………………….J. April 12, 2019. [M.R. SHAH]    

6