Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100992-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12684 of 2018 Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Shahid Ali Siddiqui,Shimpi Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pramod Kumar Singh,Satyavrat Sahai Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyavrat Sahai, holding brief of Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding respondent no. 2 (Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad) proceed under Section 311 of Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 pursuant to the application made by petitioner for demolition of building no. 22 situate over free hold plot no. 31/1, Civil Station M.G. Road, Allahabad being dilapidated and in ruinous condition." 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad stating that the property sought to be demolished is in possession of the Nagar Nigam, where a library is being run for a very long. There is dispute with regard to tenancy and the proceeding in respect thereof are pending before the competent court. Paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit contains narration of facts in this regard which are reproduced herein below:- "7. That the contents of paragraph nos. 8 and 9 are denied and in reply it is stated that the original owner has not informed the petitioner about the ongoing litigation between the Nagar Nigam and the previous owner which was instituted much before the freehold and such the title shall be effective only after the decision of the outcome of the case is being Misc. Case No. 126 of 2008, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad Vs. Smt. J.M. Chothiya and any act against the still and the court will be amount to contempt. 8. That the contents of paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition are denied. In reply it is stated that the library that the structure has not dilapidated at all and the library is functional and open for public readers and researches, whose rent is being duly paid as per the order of the learned court." 4. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has not denied the factum of pendency of dispute before the civil court in respect of eviction of the tenant. However, whatever stated is that the building is in a dilapidated condition. 5. We have perused the writ petition, in which there is no reference to the proceedings pending before the civil court in respect of dispute of tenancy. From the materials placed on record, we find substance in the contention of the respondent that the object of filing the writ petition is somehow to secure eviction of the second respondent from the premises in dispute where a public library is being run. The writ petition is absolutely silent about pendency of the proceedings in respect of the tenancy dispute. 6. In the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the factum of dispute relating to tenancy over the property sought to be demolished. In such view of the matter, we refuse to come to the aid to the petitioner so as to secure eviction of tenant on the pretext that the building is in dilapidated condition. 7. No direction in this writ is warranted at the instance of the present petitioner. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 sfa/ Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad