Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 626 (ALL)

Abdul Rauf v. Must. Jubaida Khatoon

2010-02-17

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Islam for the contesting respondent. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 12.7.2005 and 18.1.2010 by which the release application of the respondent landlord has been allowed. 3. The petitioner is a tenant of the disputed premises of which the contesting respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the premises for personal need. The application was allowed ex parte vide order and judgment dated 12.7.2005 by the Prescribed Authority directing release of the premises. Instead of prefering an appeal, the petitioner tenant made an application for recalling the order on the ground that though he was attending the case regularly but since 21.6.2008 he was down with jaundice and when he recovered on 16.7.2005 he came to know about the ex parte decree whereafter the petitioner preferred recall of the ex parte release and on its rejection he filed an appeal against the release order and the aforesaid order but the same has been rejected vide order dated 18.1.2010 holding that there was no provison of filing an appeal against an order rejecting the recall application. 4. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had given cogent reason for his absence before the Prescribed Authority and has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others Vs. Mohan Singh [1978 ARC 496] to contend that authority should try to dispose off the matter on merits rathen than on technicalities.? 5. Faced with this learned counsel for the respondent states the subject to the conditions which may be imposed, the petitioner may be given one last opportunity. 6. In the special facts of this case this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 12.7.2005 and 18.1.2010 are hereby quashed subject to the following conditions:- (I)? The petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost with the Trial Court within a month from today. (II) The petitioner undertakes not to take any adjournment on any ground except two adjournments for not more than three days each subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as cost on each occasion. 7. The petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost with the Trial Court within a month from today. (II) The petitioner undertakes not to take any adjournment on any ground except two adjournments for not more than three days each subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as cost on each occasion. 7. The Prescribed Authority may dispose off the release application within three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order. 8. In case of default of any of the aforesaid conditions by the tenant, the writ petition would stand dismissed and the aforesaid order would stand recalled and the landlord would be entitled to execute the release order.