Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, whereby the prescribed authority rejected the application of the tenant-petitioner with a prayer to accept the written statement filed by the tenant-petitioner, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act before the prescribed authority on the ground that the accommodation in dispute may be released in favour pf the landlord, as the building in Which the accommodation in dispute is situated is in dilapidated condition, which requires demolition and reconstruction. This application has been filed by the respondent-landlord on 26th July, 2002. On 12th March, 2004, an application was filed by landlord before the prescribed authority that no written statement has been filed therefore a direction be issued that the objection, written statement and the evidence of the petitioner-tenant is closed. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 26th March, 2004, for recall of the order dated 12th March, 2004, with a further prayer that the written statement accompanying the application may be accepted on record and the petitioner-tenant may be directed to contest the application. The prescribed authority vide order dated 9th April, 2004, refused to recall the order dated 12th March, 2004, on the ground that in view of the proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since more than 90 days have already elapsed, therefore the prescribed authority has no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the written statement. Thus, this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the contesting respondent-landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord in support of the order impugned in the present writ petition has relied upon decision of this Court in Nanda Agrawal (Dr.) v. Matri Mandir, Varanasi and Anr. 2005 (1) AWC 948 : 2004 (2) ARC 598 ; Chandan Lal v. Vth Additional District Judge, Aligarh and Anr. 2004 (2) ARC 604. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord further relied upon decision of learned single Judge of this Court in the case Shah Mohammad v. Incharge District Judge, Lucknow and Ors. 2005 (1) ARC 417, and the decision in Ram Autar Agarwal v. Additional District Judge (Special), Rampur and Ors., 20O5 (1) AWC 833 : 2005 (1) ARC 419 and contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court that since the proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has held to be mandatory, the view taken by the prescribed authority in rejecting the application for accepting the written statement does not suffer from any error of law.;