Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Case No. 14 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner Gulshehra Khanam against respondent no. 2 Aftab Ahmad under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act no. 13 of 1972). 3. Sri V.P. Singh, who was working as First Additional Civil Judge (SD), Aligarh was authorised by the District Judge, Aligarh vide order dated 6.1.1999 to exercise, perform and discharge all the powers, function and duties of Prescribed Authority under section 3(e) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Order dated 6.1.1999 of the District Judge, Aligarh in this regard reads thus: “Order no. 1 of 1999 Sri Ashwani Kumar, I Addl. Civil Judge(S.D.), Aligarh, who was appointed Prescribed Authority under provision of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972, has taken over charge of the court of Ist Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. Therefore in supersession of all previous orders, I hereby appoint Sri V.P. Singh, I Addl. Civil Judge(SD), Aligarh as Prescribed Authority, under section 3(e) of U,.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 and authorise him to exercise, perform and discharge all the powers, function and duties of the Prescribed Authority under the said Act in respect of the cases relating to Tehsil Koil including Aligarh town with immediate effect. Sd/- (V.S. Bajpai) District Judge, Aligarh 6.1.1999" 4. Sri V.P. Singh was thereafter appointed and posted as Civil Judge (S.D.), Aligarh. He vide his letter dated 17.2.1999 informed the District Judge that as there are a few number of cases for hearing in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Aligarh and his quota is not complete, he requested that two cases being P.A. case no. 13 of 1994 i.e. case of the petitioner, and original suit no. 411 of 1988, which he has already heard and only judgment is to be delivered, may be transferred to his court if possible. Pursuant thereto, the District Judge, Aligarh vide his order dated 18.2.1999 recalled the aforesaid two files and transferred them to his court for the purpose of disposal of the case. 5. In the mantime, Sri K.P. Singh was appointed as Ist A.C.J.M. by order dated 12.2.1999 and he joined the post. Pursuant thereto, the District Judge, Aligarh vide his order dated 18.2.1999 recalled the aforesaid two files and transferred them to his court for the purpose of disposal of the case. 5. In the mantime, Sri K.P. Singh was appointed as Ist A.C.J.M. by order dated 12.2.1999 and he joined the post. Subsequently, by order dated 26.2.1999 of the District Judge, Sri K.P. Singh was appointed as Prescribed Authority under Section 3(e) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for deciding cases arising out of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. The order dated 12.2.1999 is thus : “Order no. 14 of 1999 Vide my order dated 6.1.1999 Sri V.P. Singh, I Addl. Civil Judge(S.D.), Aligarh was appointed Prescribed Authority under Section 3(e) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Now Sri K.P. Singh has been appointed I A.C.J.M., Aligarh with effect from 12.2.99. He will continue to exercise, perform and discharge all the powers, functions and duties of the Prescribed Authority under the said Act in respect of the cases relating to Tehsil Koil including Aligarh Town with immediate effect. All the files relating to the work of the Prescribed Authority are hereby recalled from the court of I Addl. Civil Judge (SD, Aligarh and transferred to the court of I A.C.J.M., Aligarh with immediate effect. Sd/- ( V.S. Bajpai) District Judge, Aligarh 26.2.1999" 6. Arguments in the case of petitioner which had been transferred to the court of Sri V.P. Singh, were again heard by him on 26.2.1999 and judgment was reserved in the case. The judgment was delivered by him in the petitioner’s case on 4.3.1999 allowing release application of the landlord. 7. Aggrieved the respondent no. 1 filed appeal no. 7 of 1999 before IXth Additional District Judge, Aligarh who vide impugned judgment and order dated 2.2.2000 allowed the appeal on the ground that Sri V.P. Singh was not having valid authorisation as Prescribed Authority on the date he heard the matter on 26.2.1999 and when he delivered the judgment on 4.3.1999. 8. 1 filed appeal no. 7 of 1999 before IXth Additional District Judge, Aligarh who vide impugned judgment and order dated 2.2.2000 allowed the appeal on the ground that Sri V.P. Singh was not having valid authorisation as Prescribed Authority on the date he heard the matter on 26.2.1999 and when he delivered the judgment on 4.3.1999. 8. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that Sri V.P. Singh was competent to decide the case which had been transferred to him by the District Judge by his order dated18.2.1999 and till the time of hearing Sri K.P. Singh had not been appointed as Prescribed Authority, that Sri V.P. Singh continued to be the Prescribed Authority under Section 3(e) of the Act before passing of the order dated 26.2.1999 and in any case as the file of the case of the petitioner had been recalled and transferred to his court of Civil Judge (S.D.), and he was the prescribed authority on 18.2.1999 when it was transferred to him as well as on 26.2.1999 when he had reserved the judgment. The appellate court has committed an illegality in law and on face of record in holding that the judgment delivered by him was without jurisdiction. It is also argued that after conclusion of the arguments, nothing more was to be done except delivery of the judgment on 4.3.1999 and as the judgment was a reserved one, Sri V.P. Singh had the jurisdiction to deliver it in the case which he had heard as prescribed authority and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that Sri K.P. Singh had joined as Ist Additional Civil Judge(SD), Aligarh on 12.2.1999, as such he was the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge by his order dated 18.2.1999 on the transfer application dated 17.2.1999 of the petitioner had not authorised him to decide the case as Prescribed Authority under Section 3(e) of the Act, as such there is no infirmity in the order of the appellate court impugned in the writ petition. 10. Considering rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 3(e) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which reads thus : “3(e). 10. Considering rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 3(e) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which reads thus : “3(e). “prescribed authority” means a Civil Judicial Officer or Judicial Magistrate authorised by the District Judge to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the prescribed authority under this Act and different such officers may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases and the District Judge may recall any case from any such officer and may transfer it for disposal to any other such officer.” 11. From the perusal of aforesaid provision, it is abundantly clear that the District Judge may recall any case under U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 pending before the Prescribed Authority or any such officer and transfer it to any such other officer who has been appointed as prescribed authority under Section 3(e) of the Act. 12. The moot question before the Court is as to whether Sri V.P. Singh had jurisdiction to hear the case on 26.2.1999 as Prescribed Authority under Section 3(e) of the Act and deliver judgment on 4.3.1999? 13. The admitted facts are that Sri V.P. Singh was authorised under Section 3(e) of the Act by the District Judge by order dated 6.1.1999 to exercise, perform and discharge functions and duties of the prescribed authority. He continued to be prescribed authority till 26.2.1999 though he was promoted as Civil Judge (S.D.), Aligarh. Sri K.P. Singh was by appointed by order dated 26.2.1999 as prescribed authority to discharge functions as such with immediate effect. 14. It is also an admitted fact that in the meantime, Sri V.P. Singh had written a letter dated 17.2.1999 to the District Judge for transfer of aforesaid two cases stating therein that hearing in those cases is complete and hence those two cases may be transferred to his court for disposal; that the District Judge, Aligarh vide his order dated 18.2.1999 on the application recalled the files from the court of Ist Addl. Civil Judge where Sri V.P. Singh was earlier working as Prescribed Authority and transferred it to him in the court of Civil Judge (SD), where Sri V.P. Singh had joined as such. Civil Judge where Sri V.P. Singh was earlier working as Prescribed Authority and transferred it to him in the court of Civil Judge (SD), where Sri V.P. Singh had joined as such. The letter of Sri V.P. Singh dated 17.2.1999 in this regard and order dated 18.2.1999 of the District Judge thereon are thus : izs"kd@& oh0 ih0 flag flfoy tt] ¼lhfu;j fM0½ vyhx<+A lsok esa] ekuuh; tuin U;k;k/kh’k vyhx<+A egksn;] eSaus fnukad 12-02-1999 dks izFke vij flfoy tt ¼lhfu;j fM0½ dk pktZ NksM+us ds mijkUr flfoy tt ¼lhfu;j fM0½ vyhx<+ dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k gSA ekg tuojh o 12 Qjojh 99 rd izFke vij flfoy tt ¼flfu;j fM0½ U;k;ky; esa eSaus tuojh ekg esa 13 fnu ds vftZr vodk’k ij djus ds dkj.k o U;k;ky; cny tkus ds dkj.k ogkWa eSa tuojh ekg Hkh dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha dj ldk rFkk ekg esa Hkh vHkh rd ;g Hkh fnu dk dk;Z iw.kZ ugha gqvk gSA fuEufyf[kr nks eqdneksa esa izFke vij flfoy tt ¼lhfu;j fM0½ U;k;ky; esa cgl iw.kZ gks pqdh gS dsoy fu.kZ; dh dk;Zokgh vo’ks"k gS rFkk esjk tuojh o Qjojh 1999 dk dksbZ 'kkVZ py jgk gSA bl U;k;ky; esa dsoy 10&12 eqdnes gh vfUre lquokbZ dh LVst ij gSA vr% ;fn lEHko gks rks fuEufyf[kr nks eqdnesa ftuesa cgl dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ gks pqdh gS] dks izFke vij flfoy tt ¼lhfu;j fM0½ ds U;k;ky; ls bl U;k;ky; esa LfkkukUrfjr djus dh d‘ik djsaA 1-ewy okn la0411@88 txeksgu &cuke& lkfo=h 2- ih0,0 dsl la0 13@94 xqy’ksj &cuke vkQrkc vknj lfgrA fnukad% 17-02-95 Gkonh;] ,l0Mh0oh0ih0 flag0 ¼oh0ih0 flag½ flfoy tt ¼lhfu;j fM0½ vyhx<+A** 15. The order of the District Judge dated 18.2.99 on the letter of Sri V.P. Singh for recall and transfer of case of the petitioner is thus : “Recalled and transferred to Civil Judge (SD). Sd/- illegible 18.2.1999" 16. After receipt of the case files, the case was fixed on 26.2.1999 and judgment was reserved by Sri V.P. Singh. 17. It is clear from second paragraph of order no. 14/1999 dated 26.2.1999 appointing Sri K.P. Singh as prescribed authority that he had been appointed as Ist A.C.J.M. with effect from 12.2.1999 and was to continue to discharge all powers, functions and duties of prescribed authority under U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972, with immediate effect i.e. 26.2.1999. 17. It is clear from second paragraph of order no. 14/1999 dated 26.2.1999 appointing Sri K.P. Singh as prescribed authority that he had been appointed as Ist A.C.J.M. with effect from 12.2.1999 and was to continue to discharge all powers, functions and duties of prescribed authority under U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972, with immediate effect i.e. 26.2.1999. It is further provided in the order dated 26.2.1999 that files relating to the work of prescribed authority were recalled by the District Judge on the said date of order i.e. 26.2.1999 from the court of Ist Additional Civil Judge (SD), Aligarh and transferred to the court of Ist A.C.J.M., Aligarh with immediate effect and not those two files from the court of Civil Judge(SD), Sri V.P. Singh. 18. The words “with immediate effect” used in the order no. 14/1999 dated 26.2.1999, would mean from the date and time the order is signed. It is to be noted that two files i.e. P.A. case no. 13 of 1994 (case of the petitioner) and original suit no. 411 of 1988, had already been transferred to the court of Sri V.P. Singh who had taken charge as Civil Judge (SD), Aligarh and was continuing as prescribed authority under section 3(e) of the Act no. 13 of 1972 till 26.2.1999. Therefore, Sri K.P. Singh in view of the order dated 26.2.1999 had no jurisdiction over those two files as only the files which were pending in the court of Ist Additional Civil Judge (SD), Aligarh were transferred to him as Prescribed Authority in the court of A.C.J.M., Aligarh. 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that Sri V.P. Singh could not have decided P.A. case no. 14 of 1994 of the petitioner as prescribed authority as the matter had been transferred to him by the District Judge, Aligarh by his order and he was authorised and working as Prescribed Authority prior to 26.2.1999 when Sri K.P. Singh was appointed vide order dated 26.2.1999 as Prescribed Authority. Even otherwise the District Judge had the power to recall any case from the court of one prescribed authority and transfer it to any such other officer for disposal of the case which power was exercised by him vide order dated 18.2.1999. Even otherwise the District Judge had the power to recall any case from the court of one prescribed authority and transfer it to any such other officer for disposal of the case which power was exercised by him vide order dated 18.2.1999. There was no illegality in the order dated 18.2.1999 as Sri V.P. Singh was Prescribed Authority appointed under Section 3(e) of the Act on that date, hence reserving the judgment on 26.2.1999 and delivering the same on 4.3.1999 cannot be said tobe illegal as the judge retained the jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority on transfer of the case to him and also after reserving of the judgment on 26.2.1999 for delivery on 4.3.1999. 20. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.2.2000 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate court for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. No order as to costs. (Petition allowed) _____________