Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 161 (ALL)

Col. P. R. Bahugnna v. District Judge, Dehradun

1987-02-12

V.K.KHANNA

body1987
JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This landlord's writ petition filed against the order of the District Judge, Dehradun dated 22-12-1983 allowing the appeal filed by the tenant against the decision of the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the petitioner-landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. Brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the building known as 'Minerva Castle'. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved by the petitioner on the ground that he has retired from the Indian Army on 31-7-1982 and that the present accommodation is required by him for residence as well as for running lodging house business. The aforesaid application was resisted by the respondent No 2 on the ground that the application was not maintainable for non-joinder of the other joint tenants who had inherited the tenancy od the death of the previous tenant Labh Singh, beside other grounds. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application on 8-9-1983 after giving a decision on all the questions in favour of the landlord, including the question of maintainability of the application. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal and the District Judge, Dehradun has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and has remanded the case to him for disposal of the application again in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition has urged that the District Judge in appeal has wrongly held that the application could not be decided. The plea of non-joinder of necessary party had been taken by the tenant and the burden of proof was clearly on him to prove that all the tenants had not been impleaded in the application. Parties had led evidence on the point and in case the tenant succeeded in establishing his plea, the necessary legal consequence in respect of the maintainability of the application would follow. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, urged that all the heirs of the previous tenant Labh Singh were necessary parties and the District Judge was right in remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, urged that all the heirs of the previous tenant Labh Singh were necessary parties and the District Judge was right in remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority. After carefully considering the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the District Judge should not have remanded the matter and should have decided the appeal himself. Respondent No. 2 Sri Mahendra Pal Singh has raised the plea that all the tenants had not been impleaded in the application. The plea having been raised by the respondent No. 2, the burden of proof clearly lay on him. Admittedly, the parties have led evidence on this point and the appellate court should have decided the question on the basis of the evidence led on the record. In case the plea taken by the tenant is established the appellate court would be entitled to record a finding on that basis and the necessary legal consequence he would follow as a result of recording that finding. 5. For the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the order passed by the lower appellate court is liable to be quashed. The application has been filed in the year 1982 and thus the appellate court is directed to decide the appeal within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. It is being made clear that on the issues which arise for consideration in the appeal no opinion is being expressed by this court on merits. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the District Judge, Dehradun dated 22-12-1983 is quashed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within a week, from today.