Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2775 (ALL)

Jagarnath v. Amarnath

2012-12-03

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.10.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioner's application purported to have been filed under Rule 23 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") . The application is in the nature of interrogatory requiring the landlord to adduce certain facts so as to support or contradict the stand taken before Prescribed Authority. 3. It is not disputed that one of the landlord, Amarnath has filed P.A. Case No. 6 of 2007 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") impleading not only the petitioner-tenant but all the family members of landlord who constitute as a body together the owner of property in dispute. In respect to factum, whether there is a family partition or not, all the concerned persons are party before Prescribed Authority who have these facts in their personal knowledge and can tell specifically as to whether such partition has taken place or not. The petitioner obviously cannot have the personal knowledge of this fact and his stand in this respect cannot be conclusive unless he adduce evidence otherwise. It is not his case that other defendants before Prescribed Authority have disputed the factum of partition between family members of landlord. 4. Be that as it may, as the case is proceeding, it is for the Prescribed Authority to find out ultimately what are the issues and what should be decided. Ex facie no person can be required to adduce evidence against himself and the petitioner-tenant in this particular case by moving application, as observed by Prescribed Authority, has only tried to prolong the proceedings. 5. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is liable to be dismissed but since the proceeding before Prescribed Authority is pending for the last four years, I find it in the fitness of case that Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the case within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed.