RIAJUL HASAN Vs. A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the tenant of an accommodation aggrieved by the order dated 2.12.1998, passed by the prescribed authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act' and the order passed by the revisional court dated 27.2.2001, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the aforesaid orders and a further direction that the prescribed authority be directed to decide the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act filed by the landlord on merits after hearing the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) The facts which emerge out of the pleadings of the parties are that the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act for the release of the accommodation in dispute for his personal bona fide requirement. The petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid application by filing written statement. The prescribed authority before whom the aforesaid application was pending, by its ex parte order dated 2.12.1998, allowed the application filed by the landlord and directed for release of the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner-tenant preferred an application dated 10.12.1998 before the prescribed authority purporting to be an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.12.1998 which was registered as Misc. Case No. 327 of 1998. The prescribed authority after exchange of the objections rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the order passed by the prescribed authority rejecting the petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.12.1998 preferred a revision purporting to be revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revisional court dismissed the revision as not maintainable. Thus, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents raised an objection regarding maintainability of the revision under Section 115 before the revisional court. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 38 of the Act no revision lies as the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as such are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decisions in Sajida Begum and Ors. v. 1st Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad and Ors. 2002 (1) AWC 131 ; Chandeshwar Yadav v. Smt. Radha Devi and Ors., JT 2001 (Suppl 1) SC 564 ; Salil Dutta v. T.M. and M.C. Pvt. Ltd. 1992 RD (Suppl) 394 and Rafiq and Ors. v. Munshi Lal and Ors. 1981 ACJ 375. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that in view of the provisions of Section 37(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the order passed by the prescribed authority has become final. The provisions of Section 37 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are reproduced below : 37. Finality and presumption.--(1) No order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court.