Balkishan and others vs Prescribed Authority and another

S.U. Khan, J.—List revised. No one appears for the contesting respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Landladyrespondent No. 2Jwala Devi since deceased and survived by the legal representatives filed release application under section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 4 are tenants of one shop and petitioner No. 5 is tenant of another adjoining shop. Release application was registered as Case No. 1 of 1993 on the file Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Deoband District Saharanpur. In the release application a compromise was entered into, copy of which is Annexure1 to the writ petition. Compromise was entered into on 13.8.1993. Release application was decided in terms of compromise on 5.11.1993. Thereafter, applications were filed by the petitioners before prescribed authority on 3.8.1995 for a direction to the landlady to reconstruct the shops and deliver possession of the same to the tenants.

Landlady filed objections to the said applications and stated that tenants themselves did not comply with the directions of the compromise and did not deliver possession promptly. The said applications were rejected on 24.4.1997 by the prescribed authority hence this writ petition.

In Para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that possession was delivered by the petitioners to the landlady.

Prescribed authority while rejecting the applications of the tenants did not disbelieve their version that they had delivered possession to the landlady. However, the Court below held that no direction could be issued to the landlady to reconstruct the shops and deliver newly constructed shops to the tenants.

In my opinion prescribed authority was not correct.

There is a lacuna in U.P. Rent Control Act that it does not provide time limit for reconstruction and delivery of possession of reconstructed portion to the landlord if release application on the ground of dilapidated condition of the building is made and allowed under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act, However, this lacuna may be filled by appropriate order by the Court while allowing application of the landlord under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act.

Supreme Court in Syed Jalil Abbas v. Mohd. Yaminh, 2004 (19) AIC 57 (SC)=2004 (57) ALR 11(Sum)=AIR 2004 SC 3683. has held that such a condition may be imposed and until delivery of possession of newly constructed building landlord may be directed to pay reasonable damages to the tenant.

Accordingly, it is directed that landlady shall reconstruct the shops and give newly constructed shops to the petitioners as had been agreed between the parties through compromise. However, as about two decades have passed hence reasonable rent must be fixed to be paid by the tenants. In my opinion the reasonable rent will be Rs. 500/ per month for each shop.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and it is directed that within six months from today landlady shall reconstruct ''the shops and give possession of the newly constructed shops to the tenantspetitioners at the rent of Rs. 500/ per month payable by each of tenants. In case this condition is not complied with by the landlady then since after six months till actual delivery of possession of the newly constructed shops landlady shall be liable to .pay damages at the rate of Rs. 500/ per month to each set of tenants. Petitioners are directed to send certified copy of this order to one of the landlords within three weeks through registered post.

Writ Petition Allowed.