Pratibha Rani vs Aroti Ghosh and Another

Sudhir Narain, J.—The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1741999 passed by the Prescribed Authorityrespondent No. 2 allowing the application filed by the landladyrespondent 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 16101999 rejecting the application of the petitioner for setting aside the said order and the order of the appellate authority dated 27101999 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The facts, in brief; are .that the landladyrespondent No. 1 filed an application on 411996 under Section l(l)(a) of the Act for release of House No. 16B (new No. 20) Elgin Road, Allahabad on the allegations that she requires the accommodation in question bona fide.

On the said application the Prescribed Authority issued notice to the petitioner. As the petitioner did not appear, the Prescribed Authority directed on 2371996 to serve the notice by publication. On 2421997 the petitioner appeared and the Prescribed Authority fixed 2731997 for hearing the matter. On 273 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 writtenstatement which was allowed. On 18121997 the petitioner filed an application challenging the ownership of respondent No. 1. file Prescribed Authority fixed 2711998 for disposal. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 531998 and fixed 2841998.

4 On 2841998 ''the petitioner sought time for filing the written statement which was allowed. The Prescribed Authority fixed 671998 for filing writtenstatement by the petitioner and for leading evidence. In the meantime, on 171998 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 471998. On 67 1998 the Judge Small Causes Court exercising the power of the Prescribed Authority directed that the lawyers be informed in general about the transfer of the cases from the Court of ACJM (Senior Division) due to the change of the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority to Judge Small Causes Court. On 671998, the Judge Small Causes Court (Prescribed Authority) fixed 2881998. It was again adjourned to 1521999 of 1421999: 1521999 was a holiday. The file was put up on 1621999. On 1621999, 2321999 was directed to be fixed for further orders. On 2321999 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority directed to proceed ex pane and fixed 541999 for evidence. On 541999 the petitioner was again absent. The Prescribed Authority directed to put up the ease on 1741999. On 1741999 the Prescribed Authority, on the basis of the material and evidence on record produced by the land lady, allowed the release application.

The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex pane order on 2441999 on the ground that she had no knowledge of the transfer of the case. Respondent No. I opposed the application. The application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 16101999 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 1741999 and 16101999 before the District Judge. The appeal has been dismissed by the District Judge vide the impugned order dated 27l0l999. These Offers have been challenged in the present writ petition.

I have heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contendedthat neither the petitioner nor her counsel was informed about the transfer 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.

It is not denied that the petitioner had sought time to file writtenstatement and that was allowed by ACJM (Prescribed Authority) and had fixed 671998. In between this period the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority was conferred on Judge Small Causes Court by the order of the District Judge on 17 1998. The petitioner had engaged a lawyer who was contesting the matter. It was not a .single case that was transferred but the jurisdiction of the ACJM as Prescribed Authority was taken over and was conferred on the Judge Small Causes Court on 171998. Even assuming that she had no knowledge, she could have known about the transfer of the jurisdiction. It has not been stated that on 671998 the petitioner or her counsel had gone to the Court of the ACJM. Even after 671998 the petitioner remained absent and it is only on 1741999after about 9 months, the Prescribed Authority passed the order allowing release application.

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.

The petitioner shall file writtenstatement, 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.

The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 1741999, 16101999 and 27101999 are hereby quashed with the condition imposed as noted above and subject to the observations made in this order. Petition allowed.