- (1.)RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This is a tenant's petition. The landlady, respondent No. 3, purchased house in dispute vide sale deed dated 1. 6. 1989. She sent notice dated 10. 9,1990, informed the petitioner that his tenancy is in a part of house in dispute. Considering of one room @ Rs. 50, that the tenement is in dilapidated condition and not a habitable condition as the walls have developed big cracks and have left their Joints with passage of time and are in irreparable condition. It was also informed to the petitioner as tenant that he has also failed to pay the rent w. e. f. 1. 6. 1989 inspite of demand, as such his tenancy is determined, hence he should hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the house in dispute within seven days of the receipt of the notice the respondents alongwith arrears of rent w. e. f. 1. 6. 1989 otherwise proceeding in accordance with law for her eviction would be initiated by the landlord.
(2.)IT appears from the notice that the house in dispute was in dilapidated condition and the landlord wanted to demolish the existing building and construct a new building on the same site.
Respondent No. 3, thereafter filed release application on 20. 9. 1990 under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. An amendment application was also filed by the petitioner-tenant for amending his written statement bringing following text on record. "clause 14 (a)-That the house in question is under the tenancy of O. P. since before its purchase by the applicant, from its earlier owner. The applicant has not been served with statutory notice of six months and the application has been moved within three years of the date of purchase of the house as such the same is not legally maintainable. "

The petitioner also filed an affidavit dated November, 1991, that she has been informed that the plaintiff was not sole owner of the house and that the house is neither about 100 years old nor is in dilapidated condition. It was averred in the affidavit that part of the roof of first floor portion, in which the landlady was living earlier has been broken down by her and she has left the debris upon the roof of the ground floor portion with the sole motive that ground floor portion may cave in.

(3.)AVERMENTS were also made in the affidavit to the effect that the walls of the tenement were intact and strong enough to hold the weight of the entire building ; that the house did not require any demolition and reconstruction. It was also averred that the grounds in this regards had been taken by the landlady only to give colour to the case. It was also denied that the land lady was living in two small rooms and it was averred that infact she is living in spacious house alongwith her family members in the adjacent house. It was stated in the aforesaid affidavit that the tenants had definite information that landlord have no building plan and no source to arrange the requisite amount for reconstruction, as such there was no question for vacating the accommodation in dispute in the circumstances.
It was denied in the aforesaid affidavit need of the landlady was bona fide and she would not face any comparative hardship, that notice was only a ruse to pressurise the tenant to increase the rent and in the alternate for her eviction from the house in dispute.