The application filed by the respondent was, however, opposed by the appellant by filing a written objection in which the ground of number compliance of mandatory provision of Rule 17 framed in the Act was taken.
This application for appointment of a companymissioner was, however, rejected by the Appellate Court and subsequently by an order dated 6th of September, 2003, the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of eviction passed by the prescribed authority was also dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the final order of the Appellate Court, a Writ Petition was moved before the High Court which came to be registered as W.P. No.
Finally, on 29th of November, 1997, the prescribed authority allowed the application and passed an order of eviction against the appellant.
However, during the pendency of the application before the prescribed authority, the respondent, without obtaining any order or direction from the prescribed authority, had filed a report obtained from a private architect who, in his report, indicated that the disputed premises was in a dilapidated and dangerous companydition.
41799/2003.
An appeal was carried by the appellant before the learned District Judge against the order of eviction passed by the prescribed authority.
During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate companyrt, the appellant filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Engineer Commissioner to carry out an inspection of the disputed premises and submit a report stating therein whether the disputed premises was in a dilapidated and dangerous companydition for which demolition and reconstruction was required which was the main ground for eviction of the appellant from the disputed premises under the Act.
Leave granted.
However, while disposing of the writ petition the High Court passed an order which is to the following effect In the changed circumstances and in view of the subsequent events, in our opinion, the proceedings before the Court below may go on.
The appellant is a tenant in respect of Northern portion the premises No.124, Mohalla Chaukasi, Shahjahanpur, U.P. in short the disputed premises since 1955.
An application was filed by the respondent for release of the disputed premises before the prescribed authority under Section 21 1 b of the UP Urban Buildings Regulation of letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 in short, the Act , inter alia, on the grounds that the building was in a dilapidated companydition and was required for demolition and reconstruction.
Before the High Court, the appellant number only challenged the order of the Appellate Court but also submitted that an Advocate Engineer Commissioner be appointed for the purpose of finding out whether the disputed premises is in a dilapidated companydition and, therefore, required demolition and reconstruction.
