Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/806/2021 on 16 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 806 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Mohd. Yunus. ...Petitioner
(By Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate)
AND:
Sri Naveen Jha. ...Respondent
(By Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Respondent sought release of a shop by
filing an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972, in which petitioner is the respondent.
The said application is registered as Rent Control Case
No. 18 of 2018 before Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Nainital. Petitioner is aggrieved by
order dated 20.03.2021, whereby adjournment
application moved on his behalf was rejected and his
opportunity for filing objection was also closed on the
ground that adequate time has already been given to
the petitioner for filing objection.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that due to fever, petitioner's counsel could not file
objection to the release application within given time.
In support of this contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has referred to Annexure No. 5 to the writ
petition, which indicates that petitioner's counsel was
vaccinated for COVID-19 on 16.03.2021. Learned
counsel for the petitioner gives undertaking on
behalf of his client that objection to the release
application shall be filed positively within one week
from today.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits
that, despite seven opportunities granted to him,
petitioner did not file his objection. Thus, according to
him, this is a delaying tactics adopted by the
petitioner, who is a tenant in the shop in question.
4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that
Courts are supposed to decide cases on merits and not
on technicalities. Liberal approach has to be adopted
in such matters to do complete justice between the
parties, particularly in cases where the other side can
be compensated with costs. Hon'ble Supreme Court,
in the case of State of Punjab & another Vs. Shamlal
Murari & another, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 719, in
paragraph no. 8 has held as follows:
'Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a
servant, not an obstruction but an aid to
justice. Procedural prescriptions are the
hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant,
not a resistant in the administration of
justice. Where the non-compliance, though
procedural, will thwart fair hearing or
prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule
is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the
breach can be corrected without injury to a
just disposal of the case, the Court should
not enthrone a regulatory requirement into
a dominant desideratum. After all, Courts
are to do justice, not to wreck this end
product on technicalities.'
5. Thus, having regard to the facts &
circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed
and the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 is set
aside. Petitioner shall be at liberty to file objection to
the release application within ten days from
today, subject to payment of cost of ` 10,000/- to the
respondent within one week.
6. As the release application was filed in the
year 2018, therefore, learned Prescribed Authority is
requested to make every endeavor to hear and decide
Rent Control Case No. 18 of 2018 as early as possible,
preferably within a period of one year from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued
within 24 hours.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
