It was also alleged that the shop in occupation of the respondent was in a dilapidated companydition.
J U D G E M E N T Arising out of S.L.P. C No.19166/2001 C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.
The appellants case was that the premises in occupation of the respondent were required bona fide by the appellant for his own business of fertilizers and agricultural implements.
Hence, it was necessary to demolish the shop and reconstruct the same.
The appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed.
It was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court.
There were two reports by two Local Commissioners, submitted on spot inspection, one of which was believed and such other evidence as available on record was appreciated in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner.
Appellant is the landlord owner of the suit premises in occupation of respondent as the tenant.
The High Court has set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court and restored that of the Trial Court.
Proceedings for eviction of the respondent were initiated by the landlord on the grounds available under clauses a and b of sub section 1 of Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 U.P. Act No.
The local municipality had served a numberice on the appellant on 27.02.1985 to demolish the verandah and lintel.
XIII of 1972 .
The companyners of walls had given way.
