Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 466 (ALL)

Moinuddin v. Syed Mustafa Husain Abidi

2010-02-04

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2007 by which learned Prescribed Authority has rejected the petitioner's adjournment application and fixed a date for adducing evidence. 2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the land lord Syed Mustafa Husain Abidi has filed an application for releasing the accommodation in dipute under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulations of Lettilng Rent & Eviction )Act, 1972. It appears that during the pendency of the said release application, the landlord has died and present respondents have filed substitution application and also sought amendment in the release application. That was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 21.10.2009 fixing 22.12.2009 for filing additional objections. On 22.12.2009 the adjournment was sought by the petitioner and case was adjourned for 06.01.2010. On 06.01.2010 further adjournment was sought and it was allowed on payment of Rs.300/- as costs fixing 16.01.2010. On 16.1.2010 another adjournment application was filed which has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. 3. Sri Iqbal Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court below has illegally rejected the adjournment application and it ought to have granted time to file additional objection. In his submissions in case this order is allowed to sustain the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 4. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.N.Nirkhi learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has filed only adjournment application and not sought time for filing additional objections. Hence the application has rightly been rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considerilng the closed proximity of the date fixed on adjournments sought I find it appropriate that the court below ought to have granted adjournment for filing additional objection as admittedly no additional objection has yet been filed. In absence of additional objection there will be serious prejudice to the petitioner. In view of that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.1.2010 passed by court below is hereby quashed.The petitioner may file his additional objections by 18.2.2010 along with Rs.1000/- as costs imposed on the petitioner payable to the respondents. In absence of additional objection there will be serious prejudice to the petitioner. In view of that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.1.2010 passed by court below is hereby quashed.The petitioner may file his additional objections by 18.2.2010 along with Rs.1000/- as costs imposed on the petitioner payable to the respondents. Thereafter Prescribed Authority shall decide the release application very expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties keeping in mind the pendency of the release applications of that very year.