Akhilesh Sharma and Ors. vs XI Additional District Judge & Ors.

R.H. Zaidi, J.—By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1392000, whereby the application filed by the contesting respondents for recalling the order dated 941997, has been allowed.

It appeals that an application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for short the Act by Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 for release of the shop in dispute. The said application was contested by the petitioners and the same was dismissed on 304 1992. Challenging the validity of the said order, Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the said appeal, certain affidavits were filed before the Appellate Authority by the said respondents. The affidavits of the said respondents were objected to by the petitioners. The said affidavits ultimately by order dated 941997 were directed not to be taken into consideration and to be excluded from the evidence. Long thereafter an application dated 1631999 was filed by the contesting respondents for recalling the order dated 941997. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioners. The Appellate Authority, however, by the impugned order dated 1392000, allowed the application filed by the contesting respondents and set aside the order dated 941997. Hence, the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that there was no justification for the Appellate Authority to recall the order dated 941997 about two years after the said order was passed. It was urged that at the appellate stage, there was no justification to permit the respondents to file an application for amendment of their pleadings. The impugned order, according to him was therefore, liable to be quashed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners. The effect of the impugned order would be that the affidavits filed by the contesting respondents shall be taken into consideration. By means of the said affidavits, the contesting respondents simply wanted to bring on record the subsequent events which have happened during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority permitted the petitioners to file their affidavits in rebuttal of the said affidavits. It has been observed that if the affidavits are filed by the contesting respondents they shall be taken into consideration. Thus no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioners by means of the impugned order. It is however observed that if by now affidavits have not been filed in rebuttal, the petitioners will be at liberty to file the affidavits within a period of two weeks from today and that the affidavits shall be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal.

With these observations and directions this petition stands finally disposed of.