Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2290 (ALL)

Mohd. Naieem v. Manoj Kumar And 16 Ors.

2013-09-12

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2013
Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.48398 of 2013 (Mohd. Naieem Vs. Manoj Kumar and others), Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana in Writ Petition No. 48370 of 2013 (Mohd. Mazhar and others Vs. Manoj Kumar and others) and Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 2. Through both the writ petitions, appellate judgment and order dated 8.8.2013 has been challenged, therefore the same are being taken up together. 3. Both the writ petitions have been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 8.8.2013 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act)/Additional District Judge Etah in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2008 (Mohd. Naieem Vs. Manoj Kumar Jain and others), Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2008 (Mohd. Mazhar Vs. Mohd. Kamruddin and others) and judgment and order dated 29.3.2008 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Etah in P.A. Case No. 15 of 1997(Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. Mohd. Umar and others). 4. It appears the petitioners, in both the writ petitions, are tenant. The respondent no. 1 had filed an application seeking release of the accommodations for his personal need under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') through single application numbered as P.A. Case No. 15 of 1997 (Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. Mohd. Umar and others). The said release application, after contest, was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.3.2008 by the learned Prescribed Authority. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, two appeals were filed one by Mohd. Naieem being Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2008 and another by Mohd. Mazhar and others being Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2008. It appears pending appeals, Mohd. Naieem has filed a Writ Petition No. 60155 of 2008 praying the Court that both the appeals should be heard together and the petitioners be permitted to file additional evidence. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 20.11.2008 with the direction to decide both the appeals within a period of six weeks. Thereafter the dates were fixed from time to time in the appeals but it could not be finally decided. It appears on 16th July, 2013, judgment was reserved in both the appeals. Pending delivery of judgment, it appears Mohd. Thereafter the dates were fixed from time to time in the appeals but it could not be finally decided. It appears on 16th July, 2013, judgment was reserved in both the appeals. Pending delivery of judgment, it appears Mohd. Naieem the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 48398 of 2013 has filed an application before the District Judge for transferring the case. The transfer application was dismissed on 5.8.2013. However an observation was made by the learned District Judge that one more opportunity should be given to the applicants to argue the case. Thereafter the appeals were listed but the learned Additional District Judge adjourned the cases on the ground of filing of the transfer application. On 6.8.2013, the order of the learned District Judge was filed before the court concerned. The learned Judge adjourned the hearing of appeal fixing 7.8.2013 for further argument observing that both the appeals were heard on number of dates from May, 2013 to 16th July, 2013 and thereafter judgment was reserved on 16.7.2013 fixing 25.7.2013 for delivery of judgment but due to filing of the transfer application, judgment could not be delivered. The learned Judge has also noted the direction of this Court to decide the appeal within six weeks issued in writ petition no. 60155 of 2008 in the year 2008 itself. On 7.8.2013, from the perusal of the order-sheet, it transpires that case was called out at 12 noon, 1 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. but none responded for the appellants. The learned Judge thereafter fixed the date for 8.8.2013 with the liberty to the appellants to put forth their additional argument if any on 8.8.2013 during 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. and extended the interim order. Thereafter the judgment was delivered on 8.8.2013. 5. While challenging the appellate orders, learned counsel for the petitioners have although tried to argue on several points but the main argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that due to strike of the lawyers on 7.8.2013 and 8.8.2013, the counsel could not appear before the court and their non-appearance before the court was not deliberate. In support of their argument, learned counsel for the petitioners have brought on record the resolution of the Bar Association with the copy to the learned District Judge. In support of their argument, learned counsel for the petitioners have brought on record the resolution of the Bar Association with the copy to the learned District Judge. Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the basis of instructions received did not dispute the strike of the lawyers and the non-appearance of the counsel for the appellant before the court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been deprived of hearing of the appeals and still stand at the place where they were standing on the date of the order of learned District Judge passed in transfer application. In their submissions, judgment is vitiated on account of non observance of natural justice and it deserves to be quashed. I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. On the aforesaid arguments the Court required to know from learned counsel for the respondents whether he wants to file counter affidavit or the writ petition be allowed only on this short point. 7. Sri Singh, on the basis of the instructions received submits that he does not propose to file counter affidavit and the writ petition be decided only on the short ground pressed by the petitioner. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned judgment suffers from non-observance of the principles of natural justice as admittedly the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants could not assist the Court after the order passed by the learned District Judge on the transfer application providing one more opportunity for arguments. Therefore taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248 , Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 (1) SCC 405 , D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 269, Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, 2005 (6) SCC 321 ; Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. Vs. Central Valuation Board and others, (2007) 6 SCC 668 ; and Devdutt Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (3) ESC 433 (SC), the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 8.8.2013 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act)/Additional District Judge Etah in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2008 (Mohd. Naieem Vs. Vs. Central Valuation Board and others, (2007) 6 SCC 668 ; and Devdutt Vs. Union of India and others, 2008 (3) ESC 433 (SC), the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 8.8.2013 passed by Special Judge (E.C.Act)/Additional District Judge Etah in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2008 (Mohd. Naieem Vs. Manoj Kumar Jain and others) and Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2008 (Mohd. Mazhar Vs. Mohd. Kamruddin and others) is hereby quashed. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge who has decided the appeal on 30th September, 2013.The learned Judge is directed to hear and decide the appeal without granting any further adjournment to the learned counsel for the parties. In case, the adjournment is sought, judgment be reserved with the liberty to the party concerned to file their written submissions. In case, there is strike on that date also, police protection be given to the learned counsel for the parties to make their submissions before the court and in the event of failure to appear, parties be asked to file their written submissions. It may also be clarified that in case hearing is not concluded on the date fixed, it shall be concluded on day to day basis unless the arguments of the parties are over. ________________