KESHAW DUTT DWIVEDI AND ORS Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shri Vidya Pujan Dwivedi took on rent a motor garage from Dr. Hridai Mohan Bhatnagar, the 4th respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord). The landlord filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation) of Rent, Letting and Eviction Act, 1972 for the eviction of Vidya Pujan Dwivedi on the ground that he needed the motor garage for his own use. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, the respondent No. 1, on 14th June, 1973. Aggrieved, Mr. Dwivedi, filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow, under Section 22 of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal he died and his heirs and legal representatives did not make any application within the prescribed time for being impleaded in the appeal. Consequently, the District Judge dismissed the appeal as having abated and returned the papers to the Prescribed Authority for further proceedings. Before the Landlord could apply under Section 23 for the enforcement of the eviction Order, Keshaw Kumar Dwivedi, one of the sons of the deceased Vidya Pujan Dwivedi and the petitioner No. 2, moved an application before the prescribed Authority on 27th September, 1973 saying that he had no knowledge of the proceedings against his late father and he should be heard and further proceedings be stayed. On this application the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the counsel for petitioner No. 2. It was argued before the Prescribed Authority that it was necessary that notice should be issued to all the legal representatives of the deceased. The Prescribed Authority being of the opinion that as the order under Section 21 of the Act had been passed, the tenant or any other person found in occupation of the accommodation in dispute could be evicted under Section 23 of the Act, it was not necessary to issue any separate notice to them. He accordingly passed an order on 15th November, 1973 directing that the possession be delivered to the landlord. The petitioners are aggrieved and have moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that order under Section 21 of the Act was passed against Vidya Pujan Dwivedi and the same could not be executed, after his death, against his legal representatives. According to him fresh proceedings should have been taken against the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act. I see no force in this contention. Vidya Pujan Dwivedi admittedly was a tenant against whom the order under Section 21 of the Act was passed. Had he died during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 21, it could legitimately be said that his legal representatives should have been brought on the record before passing order under Section 21. But once an order under Section 21 of the Act is passed, against a tenant and the same becomes final after appeal further proceedings under Section 23 are by way of execution proceedings and it is not necessary that proceedings under Section 21 should be taken de novo. As soon as an order under Section 21 is passed the tenant as also all other persons living with him or on his behalf can be ordered to be evicted without any notice to them. The view taken by the Prescribed Authority, in my opinion, is correct.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act has not been complied with and according to him Rule 25 is mandatory and, as such, the proceedings under Section 23 against the petitioner are invalid. It is necessary to reproduce Rule 25 :-