R.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, dated 8.1.1988.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as averred in the writ petition, are that respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are the landlords, had filed an application for the release of the accommodation in dispute in their favour under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on the ground that the accommodation was required for their personal need. It is averred in the writ petition that the landlords simply wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 25 to 175 per month and in order to put pressure on the petitioner, the application for release was filed. It is also averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was compelled to accept the demand of the landlords, for the increase of the rent from Rs. 25 to Rs. 175 per month upon which the landlords assured the petitioner that they will not press their application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It appears that the application of the landlords seem to have filed an application for restoration of their application on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter and are agreeable that the application may be restored so that an order may be passed in terms of the compromise. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was no agreeable to the restoration of the application and had not signed the application hence his alleged signatures were not identified by the own counsel of the landlords, namely, Shri M.K. Gupta, Advocate and thus an order was obtained fraudulently restoring the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a). Thereafter, some order seems to have been obtained allowing the application for the release of the accommodation behind the back of the petitioner and without service of any notice on the petitioner. Subsequently the proceedings for enforcement of the order passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act started upon which the petitioner came to know about the fraud played by the landlord-respondents and then the petitioner filed an application before the Prescribed Authority with the allegations that the order has been obtained under Section 21(1)(a) by the landlords playing a fraud on the Court as well as on the petitioner, so much so that even the alleged signatures of the petitioner have been not identified by the own counsel of the landlords, namely Sri M.K. Gupta and not the petitioner's counsel. The application of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the Prescribed Authority, vide his order dated 8.1.1988 which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal before the District Judge against the impugned order, dated 8.1.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the original order passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 10.10.1983 behind the back of the petitioner and of which the petitioner was not aware, the appeal of the petitioner would be barred by limitation. However, if the petitioner satisfies the District Judge that the order dated 10.10.1983 was passed behind his back and by playing a fraud on the Court as well as on the petitioner so much so that even the application for the restoration which was shown to have been signed by the petitioner, was identified by the own counsel of the landlords and not by the petitioner's counsel the District Judge may take into consideration these facts and if sufficient ground is made out by the petitioner and the District Jude is satisfied that the order was obtained fraudulently and behind the back of the petitioner and that the petitioner was never aware of the order passed till the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act started it would be open to the District Judge to entertain the appeal and pass order in accordance with law after hearing the counsel for both the sides. Since the controversy regarding facts may arise in the present case which may necessitate going in the facts to find if the impugned order passed behind the back of the petitioner and has been obtained fraudulently, it would not be possible go into these aspects in writ jurisdiction and I am not inclined to interfere at this stage specially when it is open to the petitioner to plead these facts before the Appellate Court, who if satisfied would go into it and pass and order in accordance with law.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the proceedings for the ejectment of the petitioner is imminent, he may be protected from ejectment for a short time during which he will file an appeal before the Judge. In the interest of justice, I think the prayer of the petitioner is reasonable and I direct that the petitioner shall not be ejected from the accommodation in dispute for a period of one month from today during which time, it is open to the petitioner to file an appeal and necessary application before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar which shall be disposed of in accordance with law.;