RAM PRAKASH Vs. NITIN KUMAR MISHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Service of notice has been deemed sufficient by this Courts order dated 23.2.2012. None has appeared on behalf of respondent and no counter-affidavit has been filed despite time having been granted. In the circumstances, I proceed to hear the matter on merits and decide the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner, when asked whether section 10 C.P.C. would apply to the proceedings before Prescribed Authority under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), he could not show anything in support of his contention that the said provision would apply to the aforesaid proceedings and therefore his application ought to have been considered and allowed by Court below. Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in entirety are not applicable to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under Act, 1972 but in a limited manner they have been applied vide section 34 of Act, 1972. In absence of anything to show that section 10 of C.P.C. is applicable to the proceedings before Prescribed Authority under section 21 of Act, 1972, it cannot be relied on to press an application seeking deference of proceedings before Prescribed Authority. In the circumstances, I find no legal or otherwise error in the orders impugned in this writ petition warranting interference.