Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 693 (ALL)

HARISH CHANDRA JAUHARI v. SUNIL BAJPAI

2008-03-27

DILIP GUPTA

body2008
DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the tenant, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27th february, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the tenant for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report about the accommodation available with the landlord, has been rejected. ( 2 ) THE landlord filed an application 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 eviction of the tenant from the property in dispute. It was stated that the accommodation available with him was not sufficient to meet his requirement as well as requirement of his family members. The tenant filed an objection to the aforesaid application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act and specifically stated in paragraph 3 of the written statement that the landlord had 18 rooms on the various floors, which was sufficient to meet his requirement as well as the requirement of his family members. He also stated that the site plan prepared by the landlord was not correct. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid application, the tenant filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises of the landlord since the landlord had denied the extent of the accommodation mentioned in the written statement. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority holding that nothing was mentioned by the tenant in the application, which may indicate that it was necessary for causing inspection by an Advocate Commissioner. The Prescribed Authority has further observed that this fact can be proved by the evidence on record. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord had available with him sufficient accommodation of which details had been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the written statement, and as this was denied by the landlord it had become necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to cause an inspection of the accommodation and, therefore, the application filed by him was liable to be allowed. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the landlord states that the tenant did mention the correct extent of the accommodation available with the landlord in paragraph 3 of the written statement and the accommodation has been correctly mentioned by him in the site plan which has been filed. ( 6 ) THERE is, therefore, a serious dispute between the parties as to the extent of accommodation available with the landlord. In such circumstances, it was necessary that an Advocate Commissioner should have been appointed to submit a report of the accommodation available with the landlord after the inspection. The application filed by the tenant should, therefore, have been allowed. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the landlord, however, submitted that the desire of the tenant is only to delay the disposal of the application filed under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act and, therefore, a time bound direction may be given. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 27th february, 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority is set aside. The application filed by the tenant under section 34 of the Act is allowed. However, the prescribed Authority shall ensure that the report is submitted by the Advocate commissioner within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by either of the parties before it. The Prescribed Authority shall also make an endeavor to decide the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of the report by the Advocate commissioner. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .