(1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority, dated 3.1.1989 and the order of the Appellate Court, dated 28.3.1990 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Appeal No. 11 of 1989 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the basis that petitioner has compromised the matter and has agreed to vacate the disputed premises.
(2.) THE Counsel for the petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders. The first contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Prescribed Authority is patently illegal as the landlord-respondent's application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII, Rule 10, C.P.C. are applicable to the rent control proceedings. It has not been disputed by the Counsel for the respondent that the aforesaid provisions are not applicable in the rent control proceedings under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the rules framed thereunder. The Prescribed Authority did not discuss the merits of the case at all and there is not even a whisper in the order about the bonafide requirement of the landlord and or comparative hardship of the tenant. The order is, therefore, patently illegal and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
(3.) I accordingly, allow the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 3.1.1989 in P.A. No. 106 of 1988 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and the order of the Appellate Court, dated 28.3.1990, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Appeal No. 11 of 1989 filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. However, I direct that the Prescribed Authority shall expeditiously decide the matter as far as possible within four months after affording opportunity to the parties to file pleadings and give evidence. The parties' Counsel have agreed that the parties will appear before the Prescribed Authority on 24th October, 1990. It is made clear that four months time will commence from the said date.