R.B.MEHROTRA, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority, dated 3.1.1989 and the order of the Appellate Court, dated 28.3.1990 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Appeal No. 11 of 1989 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the basis that petitioner has compromised the matter and has agreed to vacate the disputed premises.
(2.) THE Counsel for the petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders. The first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Prescribed Authority is patently illegal as the landlord-respondent's application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. are applicable to the rent control proceedings. It has not been disputed by the Counsel for the respondent that the aforesaid provisions are not applicable in the rent control proceedings under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the rules framed thereunder. The Prescribed Authority did not discuss the merits of the case at all and there is not even a whisper in the order about the bonafide requirement of the landlord and or comparative hardship of the tenant. The order is, therefore, patently illegal and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, only one of the tenants, namely, the petitioner Smt. Ram Sakhi, filed an appeal. During the course of that appeal, an application seems to have been filed by only one tenant, namely Smt. Ram Sakhi, the petitioner herein, accepting that the need of the respondent-landlord is genuine and agreed to vacate the premises. Subsequent thereto, the said petitioner filed another application after sometime, stating therein that the first application was got filed by her under coercion, so the appeal should be decided on merits. The Appellate Court decided the appeal on the basis that there is no justification for not accepting its compromise filed by the petitioner and on the basis of the said compromise the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The order of the Appellate Court has been challenged before me on the ground that all the tenants were not parties to the said compromise application. As such on the basis of the said compromise, all the tenants cannot be evicted from the premises in dispute. The landlord respondent has submitted that since only Smt. Ram Sakhi filed an appeal, the compromise application was rightly accepted by the Appellate Court and the appeal was rightly dismissed as no other tenant chose to prefer an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority. I do not agree with the aforesaid proposition. Since the first order of the Prescribed Authority was patently illegal, the rights of all the tenants could not have been done away with by filing compromise only by one of the tenants. The other tenants were also arrayed as respondents and they could also have prosecuted the appeal after seeking substitution in appropriate circumstances. If one of the tenants had compromised in the matter, notice of the same should have been given to all other tenants who were parties in the appeal There is nothing on record to show that any such notice was given to other tenants. In this view of matter, I am clearly of the opinion that the Appellate Court was in error in dismissing the appeal only on the basis of the alleged compromise by one of the tenants. Since the very first order of the Prescribed Authority is patently illegal, all the tenants have right to contest the matter on merits.
(3.) I accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 3.1.1989 in P.A. No. 106 of 1988 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the order of the Appellate Court, dated 28.3.1990, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Appeal No. 11 of 1989 filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. However, I direct that the Prescribed Authority shall expeditiously decide the matter as far as possible within four months after affording opportunity to the parties to file pleadings and give evidence. The parties' Counsel have agreed that the parties will appear before the Prescribed Authority on 24th October, 1990. It is made clear that four months time will commence from the said date.;