S.U.Khan - (1.) -The second writ petition was allowed on 1.8.2007 by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. The said order was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4088-4089 of 2007, decided on 6.9.2007 and High Court was directed to hear and decide the writ petition again.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for both the parties in both the writ petitions. First writ petition has been filed by tenant Ram Chandra. Second writ petition has been filed by landlords Sri Krishan Bhagwan and Sri Hari Krishan Gupta against another tenant Shyam Sunder son of Gopal Das (Proceedings were initiated against Gopal Das. After his death before the courts below, he was substituted by Shyam Sunder.) Premises in occupation of both the tenants Ram Chandra and Shyam Sunder are adjacent and landlords of both the premises are same, i.e., Sri Krishan Bhagwan and Hari Krishan Gupta. Property in dispute in the both the cases are adjacent shops. Landlords initiated eviction/release proceedings against both the tenants on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Release application against Ram Chandra was registered as P. A. Case No. 66 of 1995 and against Gopal Das (since deceased and survived by Shyam Sunder) as P. A. Case No. 67 of 1995. Release application against Ram Chandra was dismissed on 28.7.1999 by Prescribed Authority. However, release application filed against Gopal Das was allowed by Prescribed Authority on 3.7.2000. Against order of Prescribed Authority dated 28.7.1999, landlords respondents filed R. C. Appeal No. 26 of 1999, Sri Krishan Bhagwan and another v. Ram Chandra. XII A.D.J., Moradabad, through judgment and order dated 3.7.2000 allowed the appeal of the landlords, set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlords. First writ petition by the tenant is directed against the said order of the appellate court. Against order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the release application of the landlords against tenant, Shyam Sunder son of Gopal Das the tenant filed R.C. Appeal No. 19 of 2000. A.D.J./Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Moradabad allowed the R.C. Appeal No. 19 of 2000 through judgment and order dated 1.4.2004 and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, hence second writ petition by the landlords.
(3.) AS far as decision of the appellate court challenged through second writ petition is concerned, the appellate court fully approved the findings of the Prescribed Authority holding the need of the landlords to be bona fide and also approved the findings of the Prescribed Authority to the effect that balance of hardship lay in favour of the landlords. However, appellate court allowed the appeal of the tenant, through order dated 1.4.2004, only and only on the ground that the Presiding Officer of the Prescribed Authority, which had allowed the release application of the landlord, was not authorized to hear applications under Section 21 of the Act. The release application was allowed on 3.7.2000 by Sri R. M. Sharma. On the said date, Sri Sharma was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate. Prior to that Sri Sharma was Additional J.S.C.C. and authorized to hear cases under Section 21 of the Act also. Prescribed Authority is defined under Section 3 (e) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below : "3 (e) Prescribed Authority" means a Civil Judicial Officer or Judicial Magistrate authorised by the District Judge to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the prescribed authority under this Act, and different such officers may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases, and the District Judge may recall any case from any such officer and may transfer it for disposal to any other such officer." ;