VIRENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS

LAWS(ALL)-1998-9-192

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Decided on September 24,1998

VIRENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA Appellant

VERSUS

The Prescribed Authority, Allahabad And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) HEARD petitioner's counsel. This is landlord's petition filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority whereby he has permitted the opposite parties -tenant to participate in the proceedings pending before him on an application moved by the landlord -petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, after setting aside the order by which the authority concerned had ordered the application to proceed ex -parte. Undisputedly no final order on the application of release has yet been passed. The scheme of the Act is that before any order on the application of release is finally passed, the tenant has to be given opportunity of hearing on the principle of audi alteram partem. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. were also applicable in the proceedings under the Act and consequently the Prescribed Authority has committed an error of law in allowing the tenant's application to participate in the proceedings. This argument of the learned counsel is wholly misconceived. Rule 22 applies only when an application for release is finally decided ex -parte or is dismissed in default. It does not apply to any order passed during the pendency of the proceedings. In writ jurisdiction, these court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the court in permitting a party to contest the proceedings. However having regard to the fact that the release application is pending before the Prescribed Authority since September, 1996 though Rule 15(3) contemplates decision of such an application within two months from the date of its presentation, it is directed that the Prescribed Authority shall decide the application finally in accordance with law on day to day basis within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it, avoiding all unnecessary adjournments. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.;

Click here to view full judgement.