KISHAN CHAND Vs. XTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the Petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 22 -12 -1987 passed by learned Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, by which the application for release of the accommodation in dispute has been rejected on the ground that the authority, before whom the release application was filed, had no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by the Petitioner for release of the accommodation in dispute. This application was filed on 22 -10 -1983 before the learned 2nd Additional "Civil Judge, Varanasi. The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 153 of 1983. Learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi heard the parties and by order dated 30 -4 -1985 allowed the release application and directed the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 240/ - to the opposite parties nos. 1 to 4. This order was challenged in Rent Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1985 filed by Ram Pratap and Rent Civil Appeal no. 170 of 1985 filed by Smt. Daulatiya and others. In appeal question of jurisdiction was raised and it was argued that the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge was not prescribed authority for the area on the date the application was filed, hence the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction and the order of release is a nullity. This contention was accepted by the learned, appellate authority and both the appeals were allowed by order dated 22 -12 -1987 and the release application was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the petition has been filed by the landlord.

(3.) FURTHER , the release application could not be legally dismissed. If the appellate authority was satisfied that the order has been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction, the matter should have been sent to the proper authority after setting aside the order. Considered both ways, the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained which has resulted in tremendous loss of time in deciding the application. The rent control authorities under the Act are under legal obligation to decide application for release and the appeals arising therefrom within the period prescribed under the Rules 15(2) or 10(7) of the Rules. This period has been provided by legislature for observance and not as a matter of formality alone. The phrase 'as far as possible' used in the aforesaid Rules has already been considered by this Court and interpreted, that unless it is impossible for the authority for some reason beyond his control to act within the time limit fixed by the provisions, the rent control authorities thus must record reasons for their inability to decide the application, appeal or revision within the time provided by law.