GULAB SINGH RAWAT Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, UTTAR KASHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Jai Bir Singh Bisht is the landlord of an accommodation which was let out to the petitioner. An application was made by the respondent No. 3 for release of the said accommodation in his favour under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that he needed it bonafide for his own use. The parties entered into a compromise before the prescribed Authority on 7th November, 1978. A copy of the compromise application has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The application for release was decided on the same day by an order which has been quoted in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. This order reads :- "Case decided in terms of compromise. File be consigned to Record Room."

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , an application was made by the respondent No. 3 on 12th November, 1981 under Section 23 of the Act with a prayer that possession may be delivered to him over the accommodation in question after dispossessing the petitioner in pursuance of the order of release dated 7th November, 1978 inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to vacate the accommodation in question even after the expiry of the time granted to him for this purpose. The application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No. 3 had accepted rent from the petitioner even after 31st May, 1980, and consequently there was wavier of the determination of tenancy. His case was that indeed the parties had entered into a fresh contract of tenancy in April 1980, as is apparent from his objection, a copy whereof has been filed as annexure 3 to the writ petition and that the application under Section 23 was liable to be dismissed. The Prescribed Authority took the view that since rent for the period even after 31st May, 1980, had been accepted by respondent No. 3 a fresh contract of tenancy came into being and consequently the application under Section 23 was liable to be dismissed. On this view the said application was dismissed on 29th March, 1981.

(3.) IT was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that no revision lay against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside that order in the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 which was subsequently treated as a revision.