MOLVI ABDUL JALIL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and Order dated 01.04.1982 (Annexure v. to the petition) passed by the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad, and the judgment and Order dated 25.08.1982 (Annexure VI to the petition) passed by the District Judge, Allahabad.

(2.) IN brief the facts are: Respondent No. 3 Smt. Bismillah Begum filed an application Under Section 21(1) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) for the release of the portion in occupation of the Petitioner comprising of a room on the ground floor with a staircase and one room, verandah, kitchen, bathroom and a court yard on the first floor in premises No. 11 -Kaziganj, Attarsuiya, Allahabad. It was stated in the application that the family of Respondent No. 3 consisted of 23 members and the accommodation at her disposal in the said premises comprising of 3 small rooms, a small kitchen etc. was too insufficient to meet the residential requirements of such a big family. The release application was contested by the Petitioner on various grounds. It was asserted that Respondent No. 3 had preferred the application on cooked up allegations inasmuch as the strength of the family had been inflated while the accommodation in her possession had been surreptitiously concealed to make out a bona fide case of residential requirement. Affidavits and counter -affidavits were filed by the parties in support of their respective cases. During the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority a Commissioner was appointed to enquire into the strength of the family members as well as the extent of accommodation available to the Petitioner and to Respondent No. 3. The Commissioner found 4 rooms (big and small), a latrine, a bathroom available with Respondent No. 3, besides a verandah and a courtyard. The Commissioner on the statement of Respondent No. 3 mentioned her family as self, her husband, 10 daughters, 5 sons and four children of one daughter. It was also stated that the marriage of Nizam Ahmad, son of Respondent No. 3, was shortly to be performed. As regards the Petitioner the Commissioner found his family as self, wife, daughter, daughter -in -law and her children. The accommodation in possession of the Petitioner was found to be one big room, a kitchen, and a room on the ground floor. The strength of the family members as well as the extent of accommodation available to the parties was reported by the Commissioner on the basis of the statements given by the parties. The very purpose of getting a report was thus frustrated and it was desirable that the Commissioner should have inscribed in his report the strength of the family as well as the extent of the accommodation available to the parties as he himself found on the spot, but this was not done and instead the statements in respect of the family as well as the accommodation were given out in the report. Any how this report was hardly of any avail to the courts below.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the patties have been heard. It was urged on behalf of Respondent No. 3 that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to argue beyond the provisions of Rule 16(1) of the Rules framed under the Act in view of the fact that by Order dated 27.09.1982 this Court found that the Appellant had only been able to make out a prima facie case on the ground of non -compliance of Rule 16(1) It is very difficult for me to agree with such a submission. The above observation was made by this Court while passing an interim order and the Petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to make his submissions on the merits of the case