R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) BY this petition the Petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 22 -12 -1987 passed by learned Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, by which the application for release of the accommodation in dispute has been rejected on the ground that the authority, before whom the release application was filed, had no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the Petitioner for release of the accommodation in dispute. This application was filed on 22 -10 -1983 before the learned 2nd Additional "Civil Judge, Varanasi. The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 153 of 1983. Learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi heard the parties and by order dated 30 -4 -1985 allowed the release application and directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 240/ - to the opposite parties nos. 1 to 4. This order was challenged in Rent Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1985 filed by Ram Pratap and Rent Civil Appeal no. 170 of 1985 filed by Smt. Daulatiya and others. In appeal question of jurisdiction was raised and it was argued that the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge was not prescribed authority for the area on the date the application was filed, hence the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction and the order of release is a nullity. This contention was accepted by the learned, appellate authority and both the appeals were allowed by order dated 22 -12 -1987 and the release application was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the petition has been filed by the landlord. I have heard learned Counsel for parties. In this petition a report was sent for from the learned District Judge, Varanasi intimating the correct position as to who was the prescribed authority on the relevant date. Report of the learned District Judge dated 11 -10 -1988 has been received and is on record. From the report of the learned District Judge it appears that learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge was functioning as prescribed authority by virtue of order dated 10 -8 -1983 in respect of the area coming within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsif city. By order dated 5 -1 -1984 the aforesaid Court was also made the instituting Court for cases arising out of the area of the city Munsif. From 21 -3 -1984 this jurisdiction of the prescribed authority, i.e. learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, was extended to the territorial area of Munsif, Hawaii also. The extension of the jurisdiction was done by order dated 21 -3 -1984. Thus in the present case the filing of the application can only be said to be before a wrong prescribed authority. It is not that the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge was not the prescribed authority at all. It is not denied that both the parties contested the application on merits and after hearing "them the release application was decided in favour of the landlord on 30 -4 -1985. The jurisdiction was already conferred on 21 -3 -1984, i.e. more than a year before. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the defect was in respect of presentation of the release application alone. In my opinion, for such a defect only, the application could not be legally thrown out, unless there was something more to show that the application could not be entertained subsequently also for want of jurisdiction. Such an instance may be that the application became barred by law of limitation or any other like reason, But there is nothing on record to show any such reason. The application for release moved by the Petitioner was not affected by limitation as no period is prescribed under the Act or Rules for moving such applications. It could also be said that any order passed by learned prescribed authority, during the period he had no jurisdiction to hear the application arising out of the extended area, could not be allowed to prejudice the claim of any party. The appellate authority has not referred to any such order nor the learned Counsel for Respondents could place any such order before me. Thus the ground for interference by the appellate authority could be only in the circumstances mentioned above. The learned appellate authority allowed appeals and rejected the release application (sic) on the ground of its wrong presentation, which too was not even raised before the prescribed authority, so that the application could be sent to proper authority. It was not a case of total lack of jurisdiction throughout the period when the application was heard and decided. The want of jurisdiction was confined to a particular period, i.e. between 21 -10 -1983 to 21 -2 -1984, as such its effect should have been considered in context with the happenings during this period. In my opinion, the view taken by the appellate authority is not correct and suffers from manifest error of law.
(3.) FURTHER , the release application could not be legally dismissed. If the appellate authority was satisfied that the order has been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction, the matter should have been sent to the proper authority after setting aside the order. Considered both ways, the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained which has resulted in tremendous loss of time in deciding the application. The rent control authorities under the Act are under legal obligation to decide application for release and the appeals arising therefrom within the period prescribed under the Rules 15(2) or 10(7) of the Rules. This period has been provided by legislature for observance and not as a matter of formality alone. The phrase 'as far as possible' used in the aforesaid Rules has already been considered by this Court and interpreted, that unless it is impossible for the authority for some reason beyond his control to act within the time limit fixed by the provisions, the rent control authorities thus must record reasons for their inability to decide the application, appeal or revision within the time provided by law.;