- (1.) Heard Sri Ajit Kumar counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal counsel for the respondents-land lord. Since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties counsel this writ petition is disposed of finally.
(2.) As the writ petition can conveniently be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail ;and it is suffice to mention here that on an application moved by respondent no. 3, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer initiated proceedings. He got the premises in question inspected by 'the Rent Control Inspector. Petitioner claiming himself to be lawful tenant of the premises in question filed objections against the report of the Rent Control Inspector, and by the order dated 28.11.96 the R.C. and E.O. dropped the proceedings after holding that there did not exist any vacancy. It appears that the land lord respondent then moved an application on 29.11.96 for recalling the order dated 28.11.96 on the ground that the said order was passed without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The R.C. and E.O. by the following order dated 16.12.96 recalled the order dated 28.11.96 whereby proceedings were dropped: "Heard counsel. The order dated 28.11.96 is set aside. The application be registered and notices be sent to all party 10.1.97." "Thereafter, the petitioner made an application stating that the order dated 16.12.96 has been passed in his absence and therefore the same be recalled. The R.C. and E.O. by the order dated 10.1.97 rejected the said application. There is no justification for recalling the order dated 16.12.96. The objector-tenant may file his objections against the application for allotment by 31.1.97." Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the orders dated 16.12.96 ;and 10.1.97 passed by the R.C. & E.O. are wholly illegal, null and v oid. It is further argued that the effect of the order dated 10.1.97 is that the R.C. & E.O. assumed vacancy in respect of the property in question whereas by the order dated 28.11.96 he had already dropped the proceedings and if the said order was to be recalled it was necessary for him to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In any view of the matter both the aforesaid orders do not contain any reason and are not speaking orders. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find much force in them. It is well established law that an order without reasoning is no order in the eye of law and is non est. The apex Court in the case of M/S ;HindustanTimes Limited k Vs. Union of India & others JT 1998 (1) S.C. 18 has held that obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. Justice Asprey of Australia in Pettit. Vs,Dankley (1971 (1) NSWLR 376 (CA) said that the failure of a Court to give reasons is an encroachment upon the right of appeal given to a litigant. In the case of Smt.M.Bhatnagar Vs. Dy.Director Education 1983 (1) L.C.D. 146 it was held that the order must be a speaking one. Reasons are the vehicle or bridge between the material on record and the conclusion arrivred at.
(3.) In the present case when the order dated 28.11.96 dropping the proceedings regarding declaration of vacancy had been made on merits in favour of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the R.C. & E.O. to have given an opportunity ;of hearing to the petitioner before recalling the said order on the application moved by land lord- respondent. In any view of the matter, he should have also recorded reasons as to why he thought it necessary to recall the order dated 28.11.96. The order dated 16.12.96 recalling the earlier order dated 28.11.96. is not a speakaing order as it does not indicate that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had applied his mind to; the facts of the case. The land lord had moved application for recalling the order dated 28.11.96 on the ground that he had not been afforded any opportunity of hearing, as such it was necessary for the R.C. & E.O. to have first recorded a clear cut finding whether or not the; above assertion of the land lord was correct and whether there was any necessity or justification for recalling the order dated 28.11.96.After when the order dated 16.12.96 was passed, the petitioner moved an application for recalling the said order on the ground that the same was passed behind his back. Again the R.C.& E.O. rejected the said application simply by one line order without recording any reason or finding as to whether or not petitioner had been given opportunity of hearing before the order dated 16.12.96 was passed. It is well established law that if an order has 'been made in favour of a party, the same can only be set aside after giving him an opportunity of hearing which is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice. It is true that the landlord's assertion that he had not been served with any notice and had no knowledge of the proceedings and that the order dated 28.11.96 was passed behind his back, if found to be correct the R,.C. & E.O. has the power to recall the said order but before doing so it is necessary for him to give to the petitioner ;an opportunity to oppose the said assertion of the landlord. In the circumstances, both the orders impugned will have to be set aside. The R.C. & E.O. shall call upon the petitioner to file objections if any in opposition to the application of the land lord dated 29,. 11.96 for recalling the order dated 28,. 11.96 and if any objection is filed by the petitioner, he shall duly consider the same and 'thereafter shall ;pass a reasoned order.;