1.The appellant is the tenant. He was evicted on the ground of requirement of the landlord for reconstruction. It is the case of the appellant that on account of collusion between the landlord and the builder, no reconstruction is taking place and virtually, he is devoid of his livelihood.
2.There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent, who is the builder. It is the case of the first respondent-landlord that actually it is the collusion between the appellant and the builder.
3.Be that as it may, we find that the appellant has JAYANT KUMAR ARORA for reconstruction. Now that the appellant has been evicted, it is for him to work out his remedy available to him under law. Without prejudice to such liberty, this appeal is disposed of.
4.Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] [ DEEPAK GUPTA ] [ HEMANT GUPTA ] New Delhi; November 20, 2018.