High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Shaili v. Anil Kumar And Another - WRIT - A No. 1962 of 2006  RD-AH 14236 (23 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1962 of 2006
Anil Kumar and another
Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.
Heard Sri S.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitoner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2005 passed in Rent Control Revision No.15 of 2004 Anil Kumar Vs. Smt.Shaili, by Addl.District Judge/ Special Judge, Jhansi. By means of the aforesaid order, the revisional court has proceeded to quash the order dated 13.2.2004 whereby the Prescribed Authority had rejected the recall application filed by respondent no.1 and rejected his objection and proceeded to pass release order in favour of the petitioner. The revisional court has allowed the application of respondent no.1 for recalling the order dated 10.12.2003 whereby the Prescribed Authority has declared the vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in absence of any objection being filed by respondent no.1 before the Prescribed Authority inspite of various dates fixed for the purpose and inspite of the fact that cost was imposed on the respondent no.1 he did not file any objection hence there was no option before the Prescribed Authority to proceed and to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law on the averments made therein. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is contested by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 who submits that on 10.12.2003 the objection was filed by the respondent no.1 but the Prescribed Authority did not consider the same and has held that the objection was filed after the
order of vacancy had been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in reply submitted that in case the objection dated 10.12.2003 has been filed on the same date a copy of the same should have been handed over to the petitioner or his counsel.
The revisional court has recorded its finding to the effect that the objection appears to have been filed on 10.12.2003 but the Prescribed Authority due to undue pressure has brought on record that the objection was filed on 11.12.2003 after passing of order declaring the vacancy.
During course of arguments learned counsel for the parties have agreed, keeping in mind the urgency of the need of the petitioner and that final decision may be taken within a fixed period, that the Prescribed Authority may be directed to decide the application on its merits, since the objection filed by respondent no.1 is now on record. As such the observation of the revisional court that the entire proceedings require to be set aside is quashed and it is directed that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Jhansi may proceed to decide afresh the application dated 6.8.2003 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law after taking into consideration the objection dated 10.12.2003 filed by respondent no.1. Since the matter is of the year 2003 the Rent Control & Eviction Officer shall ensure that parties are heard and it is decided within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. It is expected that both the parties will not take unnecessary adjournment and co-operate with the proceedings.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.