High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Krishna v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 160 of 2001  RD-AH 14325 (24 August 2006)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Release application no. 24 of 1999- Smt. Pushpa Devi V. M/s. Kwality Steels and others was filed by Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of late Dayanand, resident of 94, Chandrapur, Ghaziabad under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') for the release of a shop situated in premises no. 72, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad.
The petitioner is tenant served interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the landlady- respondent no. 2 and sought direction from the Court below for the landlady to give reply to the interrogatories served on her. An objection was filed by the landlady.
The trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected application no. 15-C for interrogatories vide order dated 27.3.2001.Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition against the impugned order dated 27.3.2001.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the written statement of the landlady was vague, hence interrogatories were necessary as such, the Court below has committed material illegality, apparent on the face of record, in rejecting the application in respect of interrogatories served upon the landlady. In Sohan Singh V. Maiku Lal Gupta -1976 A.L.J-156, it has been held hat purpose of interrogatories is o shorten he litigation and save the expenses of litigation.
The interrogatories appended as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, run as under :-
1. In which year Sri Puneet Kumar passed his High School Examination?
2. Whether after completing the High School, Sri Puneet Kumar tried for further studying, if not, the details be submitted as to why Sri Puneet Kumar did not continue his study?
3. On what date the applicant got started the business of Kirana to Punieet Kumar under the name and style of H.D.Sons in building no. 365, Kirana Mandi, Ramnagar, Ghaziabad?
4. Whether said firm M/s. H.D. Sons was registered with Sales Tax/Trade Tax and Income Tax Department, if so then respective numbers be filed by the applicant.
5. Whether the said firm ever submitted its trade tax/income tax returns with the concerned Departments? If so, the copies of the aforesaid returns be filed on record.
6. Whether the owner of the shop no. 365 Kirana Mandi Ghaziabad filed any legal proceedings against Sri Puneet Kumar for the vacation of the said shop under his tenancy? If so, the details of the said proceedings filed by the said landlord.
7. Who are the directors of M/s. Jagdamba Food Products as detailed in the application?
8. What is the constitution of the said firm? Whether it is a private limited company/limited company of a partnership firm?
9. Whether the said firm is registered with the Trade Tax Department, Income Tax Department or any other Department? If so, the particulars and details thereof be submitted on record.
10. Whether any income tax return/trade tax return are being filed by the said firm-M/s. Jagdamba Food Products with the concerned Department. If so, the copies of the same be filed.
11. At which place the said firm M/s. Jagdamba Food Product is working?
12. Who is the owner of the property in which M/s. Jagdamba Food Product is working?
13. What is the are of the property in which the aforesaid firm is working?
14. How many staff is working in the aforesaid firm M/s. Jagdamba Food Product, the names of the aforesaid staff be submitted by the applicant on record.
15. Whether it is true that that the applicant has filed a suit against the defendant of shop no. 5 as shown in the plaint map for ejectment on the ground that the building is a new construction? Details of the same be submitted.
16. Whether it is true that the said suit filed by the applicant against the said tenant was decreed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad and the eviction decree has been passed against that tenant after holding the provisions of U.P. Act 13, 1972 are not applicable on the said building?
17. Whether it is true that the applicant has also filed a suit for eviction against the tenant of shop no. 3? If so, the details thereof.
18. Whether apart from the property in dispute, the applicant or any of her family member had any other immovable property in Ghaziabad? If so, the details thereof be submitted.
19. Whether before constructing the building over plot no. 79, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, any map was got sanctioned from GDA? If so, the copy of the same be filed on record.
20. Whether any completion certificate was obtained from GDA in respect of the aforesaid building? If so, the copy of the same be filed on record.
21. Whether M/s. Dayanand and Sons is a registered firm under the Trade Tax and Income Tax? If so, the details thereof be given.
22. Whether the firm M/s. Pyarelal and Harsara Dass is registered with Trade Tax and Income Tax? If so, the details thereof be given
23. What is the building number in which the aforesaid 2 firms have been alleged to be working?"
By the impugned order, the lower Court has held that the release application has been filed on ground of personal need of Sri Puneet Kumar, son of the landlady, for establishing his own business. While rejecting the application of the petitioner, the Court below has held that in spite of many dates fixed in the case, the petitioner did not file any objection to the release application till date. It has also been held that in the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, evidence, on affidavits, has been taken on record and the proceedings being summary in nature, interrogatories are not relevant. A finding has also been recorded that if there is any concealment of fact by the landlady, same may be indicated in the written statement by the tenant but it appears that the tenant is interested in lingering on and delaying the matter, as such, has filed interrogatories which amounts to abuse of due process of law.
Rule 22 of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 provides for powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is as under :-
22. Powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 34 (1)(g)- The District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the appellate or revising authority shall, for the purposes of holding any enquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under the Act, shall have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely-
(a) The power to dismiss an application, appeal or revision for default and to restore it for sufficient cause.
(b) The power to proceed ex parte and to set aside, for sufficient cause, an order passed ex parte;
(c) The power to award costs and special costs to any successful party against an unsuccessful party;
(d) The power to allow amendment of an application, memorandum of appeal or revision;
(e) The power to consolidate two or more cases of eviction by the same landlord against different tenants;
(f) The power referred to in Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to make any order for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the authority concerned."
A perusal of sub-clause (f) of Rule 22 shows that it specifically provides the power referred to in Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to make any order for the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of the process of the authority concerned.
Order XI Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of the Court may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite parties or any one or more of such parties, and such interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer.
Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the discovery and inspection. After the issues have been framed each party is required to prove his case. For the purpose of proving his case, each party has been made entitled by Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure to serve questions on the adversary for the purpose of knowing their answers from him as the facts required to be answered are within the exclusive knowledge of the other party.
The question before me in this case is whether Section 34(1)(d) of the new Act provides for the discovery by interrogatories as well. The heading to Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure is ''Discovery and Inspection.' It has not been used in Section 34 for the purpose of confining the discovery by documents alone, rather it has been used in a wide sense covering discovery by interrogatories and discovery by documents.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the Court did not grant any leave rather rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of abuse of process of law.
Proceedings before the Prescribed Authority are summary in nature and Code of Civil Procedure has limited application only so far as is provided in the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Since evidence has been led on affidavits before the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner could have cross examined the witnesses and removed any doubt to bring out any fact which might have been concealed by the landlady in the release application.
No other point was argued.
In view of what has been stated above, no illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Since the matter is very old, the Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the release application within two months from today. The petitioner may file his written statement within 15 days from today. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.