Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 242 (ALL)

Rakesh Rawat v. Prescribed Authority

2015-02-06

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner was tenant of the premises no. 38/27, Nariyal Bazar, Kanpur Nagar and the respondent nos. 2 to 6 are owners and landlord of the same premises. He further argued that after the death of the petitioner the tenancy was inherited by the petitioner and his mother. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the year 2004, respondent nos. 2 to 6 filed case under Section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for eviction of the petitioners, which case was dismissed by non-prosecution on 3.9.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondent nos. 2 to 6 filed application for recall of the order dated 3.9.2008, which application is still pending. He further contended that the petitioner's mother expired on 3.9.2008 of which the respondent nos. 2 to 6, on 5.9.2014 filed an application for substituting the petitioner in place of his mother, which application has been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the suit has been dismissed in default and has not been restored no substitution application could be entertained. The second argument is that as per the provisions contained in Rule 25 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, such application should be moved within 30 days from the date of passing of the order but in the present case, same has been moved by the respondent nos. 2 to 6 after 5 years, which is against the provision of law. 6. In view of the above, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the material on record, this court is of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration. Accordingly, the order dated 3.12.2014 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for re-consideration of the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.