VIJAY MOHAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case counter and rejoinder-affidavits have already been filed, as desired by learned counsel for the parties this petition was heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage.

(2.) Present petition arises out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), (for short the Act), for release of the building. Municipal No. 3/1 and 3/2. Library Bazar. Mussoorle, Dehradun which consisted of shop-cum-residential accommodation against Shiv Dhan. father of the petitioners, who was the tenant of a shop on the ground floor and was also in occupation of the first and second floors of the said building. It was pleaded that the said building was bona fide and genuinely required to respondent No. 3. Plea of comparatively greater hardship was also taken in the said application. It was on 8.5.1994 that during the pendency of the said application, Shiv Dhan died leaving the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. For substitution of his heirs an application was filed on 8.8.1994 under Section 34 (4) of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioners on the ground of delay. It was pleaded that the delay in filing the said application was not explained in accordance with law. The same was. therefore, legally not liable to be condoned and the application was to be dismissed. The prescribed authority after hearing the parties upheld the objection raised by the petitioners and dismissed the application by the judgment and order dated 16.8.1996 and consigned the file to the Record Room. Challenging the validity of the said Judgment and order dated 16.8.1996. an appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 before the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. !t was contended that the prescribed authority has acted illegally in dismissing the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for substitution and also erred in law in consigning the file to Record Room. The said order was. therefore, liable to be set aside and the substitution application and the appeal were liable to be allowed. The appellate authority by Its judgment and order dated 5.7.2000 set aside the order passed by the prescribed authority, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the prescribed authority for decision afresh. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently raised and pressed only one ground. It was urged that the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was legally not maintainable. The appellate authority acted in excess of its Jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and allowing the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in Lalji Tandon v. Union of India, 1976 AWC 105. According to him. the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 5.7.2000 was liable to be quashed.