Iqbal vs Prescribed Authority,Meerut and Others

R.H. Zaidi, J.—By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1071996 whereby the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short, �the Act�) was decided exparte against him and the order dated 1572000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid order has been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and the controversy giving rise to the proceedings in the Court below /vas settled amicably. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

3.1 have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Against an exparte order, the petitioner was at liberty to make an application for setting aside the said order, or an application to review the same. He could also file an appeal against the same. In case the parties have entered into the compromise, the easiest way for the petitioner was to file an appeal and thereafter file the compromise before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner instead of filing the appeal against the impugned order, filed an application for setting aside the same. In view of the same, I decline to interfere in the impugned order. It is, however, observed that it will be open to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

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