High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Jyoti Prasad And Another v. Om Prakash Bansal - WRIT - A No. 2809 of 2006  RD-AH 9505 (15 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2809 of 2006
Jyoti Prasad & Another
Om Prakash Bansal
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J,
Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The facts are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the ''Act') for release of the shop in dispute. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent-landlord moved an amendment application seeking release of the shop in dispute on the ground of personal need as well. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 15.12.2004 rejected the amendment application. Thereafter, respondent-landlord filed another release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act in respect of the same shop. The tenant-petitioner filed an objection challenging the maintainability of the second application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, on the basis of Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 25.10.2005 dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.
It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Rule 18 framed under the Rules after rejection of the amendment application, the subsequent application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was barred.
The Court below rejected the objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that since the amendment on the ground of personal need sought to be introduced in proceedings under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act was rejected as such there was no decision on merits and the provisions of Rule 18 of the Act are not attracted. The provisions of Rule 18(2) of the Act relevant for the purpose are quoted hereunder:
"(2) Where an application of a landlord against a tenant under Section 21 for the release of any building or any specified part thereof or any surplus land appurtenant to such building is rejected on merits and a fresh application on the same ground is made within a period of one year from that decision, the prescribed authority shall accept the findings in those proceedings as conclusive."
A bare perusal of the language makes it clear that in case the application under Section 21 for release is rejected on merits and a fresh application is made on the same ground within a period of one year from that decision, the findings recorded in the earlier proceedings shall be accepted by the Prescribed Authority as conclusive. Thus what is relevant is that there should be a decision on the application made by the landlord under Section 21of the Act on merits.
In the present case, the release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on the ground of personal need was sought to be introduced by the landlord by way of amendment in proceedings under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, which was rejected. Thus, the Prescribed Authority had no occasion to test the question of bona fide need of the landlord on merits. There being no decision and finding on merits, the provisions of Rule 18(2) are not attracted at all. The Prescribed Authority rightly rejected the objection filed by the tenant-petitioner and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
The writ petition accordingly fails, and is dismissed in limine.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.