JAS RAM Vs. BHOJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of UPZA and LR Act (here in after ivierred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 1-3-1996, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in revision petition No. 18 of 1995-96, dis­missing the same and concurring vith the finding, recorded by the learned trial Court, in the proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the inslant revision petition are that on the complaint moved by the revisionist, Jas Ram, proceeding under Section 198(4) of the Act for cancellation of the lease, granted in favour of the opposite party, Bhoja, were initiated and notice to show cause, was issued to him. During the pen­dency of these proceedings, an objection as to the proceedings being time barred was raised by Ihe opposite party, Bhoja. The learned trial Court, after hearing the par­ties concerned, came to the conclusioji that the notice given under Section 198(5) of the Act to the opposite party was illegal and uncalled for and withdrew thesame on 16-11-1992. Aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred by'the revisionist. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 1-3-1996, dismissed the revision petition. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions, made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records, on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the crux of the mailer is whet her or nol the notice issued under Section 198(5) of the Act to the opposite party the learned trial Court was time-barred. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding to the effect that since the proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the revisionist, Jas Ram, the notice issued under Section 198(5) of the Act was time-barred and withdrew the same. Section 198(6) of the Act reads as under: