- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17-4-1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority-respondent No. 2 allowing the application filed by the landlady-respon dent No. 1 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) and the order dated 16-10-1999 rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside the said order and the order of the appellate authority dated 27-10-1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts, in brief; are. that the landlady-respondent No. 1 filed an application on 4-1-1996 under Section l (l) (a) of the Act for release of House No. 16-B (new No. 20) Elgin Road, Al lahabad on the allegations that she re quires the accommodation in question bona fide. On the said application the Prescribed Authority issued notice to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not ap pear, the Prescribed Authority directed on 23-7-1996 to serve the notice by publica tion. On 24- 2-1997 the petitioner ap peared and the Prescribed Authority fixed 27-3-1997 for hearing the matter. On 27-3- 1997 the petitioner asked the copy of the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act. The petitioner further asked for time to file a written-statement which was allowed. On 18-12-1997 the petitioner filed an applica tion challenging the ownership of respon dent No. 1. file Prescribed Authority fixed 27-1-1998 for disposal. The said applica tion of the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 5-3-1998 and fixed 28-4-1998. 4 On 28-4-1998 'the petitioner sought time for filing the written state ment which was allowed. The Prescribed Authority fixed 6-7-1998 for filing written-statement by the petitioner and for leading evidence. In the meantime, on 1-7-1998 the District Judge passed a general order that ACJM (Senior Division), who was exercising the power of the Prescribed Authority, will not exercise the power of the Prescribed Authority and conferred the jurisdiction on the Judge Small Causes Court with the result all the cases, which were pending in the Court of ACJM (Senior Division) were transferred to Judge Small Causes Court. The files of those cases, which were pending before the ACJM (Senior Division), were received in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court as Prescribed Authority on 4-7-1998. On 6-7- 1998 the Judge Small Causes Court exer cising the power of the Prescribed Authority directed that the lawyers be in formed in general about the transfer of the cases from the Court of ACJM (Senior Division) due to the change of the jurisdic tion of the Prescribed Authority to Judge Small Causes Court. On 6-7-1998, the Judge Small Causes Court (Prescribed Authority) fixed 28-8-1998. It was again adjourned to 15-2-1999 of 14-2-1999: 15-2-1999 was a holiday. The file was put up on 16-2-1999. On 16-2-1999, 23-2-1999 was directed to be fixed for further orders. On 23-2-1999 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority directed to proceed ex pane and fixed 5-4-1999 for evidence. On 5-4-1999 the petitioner was again absent. The Prescribed Authority directed to put up the ease on 17-4-1999. On 17- 4-1999 the Prescribed Authority, on the basis of the material and evidence on record produced by the land lady, allowed the release ap plication. 5. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex pane order on 24-4-1999 on the ground that she had no knowledge of the transfer of the case. Respondent No. I opposed the application. The applica tion was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 16-10-1999 on the finding that the version of the petitioner that she could not have known about the transfer of the case is not believable. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the Order dated 17-4-1999 and 16-10-1999 before the District Judge. The appeal has been dismissed by the District Judge vide the impugned order dated 27-l0-l999. These Offers have been challenged in the present writ petition. 6. I have heard Sri N. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended-that neither the petitioner nor her counsel was informed about the trans fer of the ease from the Court of J. S. S. C who was exercising the power of the Prescribed Authority, after the transfer of the case from the Courts of ACJM. 8. It is not denied that the petitioner had sought time to file written-statement and that was allowed by ACJM (Prescribed Authority) and had fixed 6-7-1998. In be tween this period the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority was conferred on Judge Small Causes Court by the order of the District Judge on 1- 7- 1998. The petitioner had engaged a lawyer who was contesting the matter. It was not a. single case that was transferred but the jurisdic tion of the ACJM as Prescribed Authority was taken over and was conferred on the Judge Small Causes Court on 1-7-1998. Even assuming that she had no knowledge, she could have known about the transfer of the jurisdiction. It has not been stated that on 6-7-1998 the petitioner or her counsel had gone to the Court of the ACJM. Even after 6-7-1998 the petitioner remained ab sent and it is only on 17-4-1999after about 9 months, the Prescribed Authority passed the order allowing release application. 9. However, in the interest of justice, 1 feel that one more opportunity be given to the petitioner to contest the mailer subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to respondent No. 1 with in a period of two weeks from today by depositing it before the Prescribed Authority or paying it to respondent No. 1 by a Bank Draft. 10. The petitioner shall file written-statement, if any, within two weeks. The parties shall lead evidence with in a period of one month. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the case on merits within a period of two months from today. The case shall not be adjourned normally, and if it has to be adjourned then for not more than three days. Any issue in regard to the ownership or related matter shall not be decided by interlocutory order. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 17-4-1999, 16-10-1999 and 27-10-1999 are hereby quashed with the condition imposed as noted above and subject to the observations made in this order. Petition allowed. .;