DESH RAJ Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YUTINDRA Singh, J. Sri Japan Das was landlord of the house in dispute. Sri Deshraj (Petitioner) is tenant of the same. After death of Sri Tapan Das the house was inherited by his two sons namely Manohar Lal (respondent No. 2) and Laxmi Chand (respondent No. 3 ). According to Sri Manohar Lal and Sri Laxmi Chand the house has been partitioned and tenancy has been split. Sri Manohar Lal filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) for release of his portion. This was numbered as Prescribed Authority Case No. 202 of 1984. Sri Laxmi Chand also filed an ap plication for release of his portion under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act which was numbered as Prescribed Authority Ap plication No. 113 of 1986. In both these two cases the petitioner has filed his writ ten statement. Thereafter he filed an application to consolidate both these two cases. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17th August, 19x7, hence the present writ petition.

(2.) IT is correct to say that Rule 22 (e) framed under the Act gives power to the Prescribed Authority to consolidate two or more cases for eviction filed by the same landlord. But Rule 22 (1) also gives in herent power to make appropriate order in the ends of justice. This provision does not debar the Prescribed Authority to con solidate two or more cases which are not covered by Rule 22 (e ). In the present case initially the tenancy was one. The house was let out by father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioner. Now two different cases have been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. IT was a fit case when these cases ought to have been consolidated. In view of this the impugned order dated 17-8-1987 is hereby quashed. The Prescribed Authority case No. 202 of 1986 and Case No. 113 of 1986 are consolidated. The Prescribed Authority concerned will decide both the cases expeditiously.