High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Virendra Nagaich v. 8th Additional District Judge And Others - WRIT - A No. 16905 of 2007  RD-AH 14210 (18 August 2007)
Court no. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16905 of 2007
Virendra Nagaich Petitioner
8th Addl.District Judge,Bareilly and others. Respondents
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-landlord filed P.A. Case No. 9 of 2000 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Bareilly against respondents for release of the house in dispute.
The respondents tenants filed written statement denying the allegations contained in the case.
The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 3.12.2004 rejected the release application of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 3.12.2004 the petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 18 of 2004 before the Appellate Court, Bareilly which was dismissed in default vide order dated 5.8.2006.
It is alleged by the petitioner that he moved the Restoration Application on that very day for setting aside the order dated 5.8.2006 before the Appellate Court and that 8 dates were fixed by the Appellate Court for disposal of the Restoration Application but the same has not yet been disposed and more than 9 months have passed.
It may be mentioned here that the JSCC suits are required to be decided within six months as provided in the Small Causes Courts Act 1887 and within three months by the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972). Frequent dates should not be given. The Courts have a responsibility to decide the case within the time which has been fixed by the legislation in its wisdom and they have to strive to decide the cases in the time limit so fixed. If they do not do so, it sets a bad precedent opening the Pandora's box for public criticism. Delay erodes the faith of the public in justice of system, hence care should be taken in this regard by the Courts.
This Court also by judgment and order dated 17.7.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31642 of 2007 Smt. Manju Devi Vs. Additional District Judge, VIII Allahabad and others has held that the cases pertaining to Rent Control matters be decided within two months.
The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that a direction may be issued to the Appellate Court to decide the Restoration Application for recall of the order dated 5.8.2006 within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.
The Standing counsel has no objection to this prayer.
Since the petition is not being decided on merit, the Court does not deem necessary in the circumstances to call upon the respondents to file counter affidavit.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Appellate Court to decide the aforesaid Restoration Application for recall of the order dated 5.8.2006 in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.