Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/188/2022 on 21 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ K. TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 188 of 2022
BETWEEN:
Abhi Sharma & another ... Petitioners
AND:
Raj Kumar Chauhan ... Respondent
With
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 189 of 2022
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 190 of 2022
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 191 of 2022
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 195 of 2022
(By Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners)
(Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sah, Advocate for the respondent)
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners are tenants, who are facing
proceedings for release of shops under Section 21(1)(a)
of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "Act No.
13 of 1972"). They are aggrieved by orders dated
15.10.2018 and 02.12.2021 passed by Prescribed
Authority.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are
involved in all these petitions, therefore, these petitions
are clubbed together and decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
WPMS No. 188 of 2022 are being considered.
3. Petitioners are challenging the orders dated
15.10.2018 and 02.12.2021 passed by Prescribed
Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani, District Nainital.
By the first order dated 15.10.2018, petitioner's
opportunity of hearing and also opportunity to file
written statement was closed due to their non-
appearance on the date fixed. Petitioners sought recall
of the said order, however, their application was
rejected vide order dated 02.12.2021 by holding that
despite several opportunities, petitioners have not filed
their written statement, although they have filed
successive applications seeking time to file written
statement and there is direction by High Court to decide
the case within time stipulated in Rule 15(3) of the
relevant Rules.
4. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that order passed by
Prescribed Authority on 15.10.2018 is unsustainable, as
petitioners' opportunity of hearing could not have been
closed. He further submits that application filed by
petitioners under Rule 23 of Rules of 1972 was pending
on 15.10.2018, therefore, the only course available to
Prescribed Authority was to reject the said application,
and opportunity of petitioners to file written statement
and also their opportunity of hearing, could not have
been closed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sah, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent submits that
release application was filed by his client in the year
2016 and petitioners, who are tenants in the shops in
question, are adopting dilatory tactics to ensure that
the release applications are not decided so that they
may continue to remain in possession of the shop. He
further submits that learned Prescribed Authority was
justified in closing the opportunity of the petitioners due
to their non-appearance during three consecutive
dates. He further submits that application, seeking
recall of order dated 15.10.2018, was also filed by
petitioners after fifteen months, to further delay the
proceedings for release of shops.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
7. In an adversarial system, no party should
ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in
the process of justice dispensation. Courts are meant to
do complete justice and not just technical justice, and
justice should not only be done but should manifestly
be seen to be done.
8. Denial of opportunity of hearing and also
opportunity of filing written statement to the petitioners
would, therefore, be too harsh, therefore, in my humble
opinion in the interest of justice, one last opportunity of
filing written statement can be given to the petitioners,
subject to cost of ₹20,000/- to be paid by each of the
petitioners to the landlord.
9. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners assures that petitioners in all the
cases shall file written statement(s) before learned
Prescribed Authority, positively within two weeks.
10. In such view of the matter, orders dated
15.10.2018 & 02.12.2021 passed by learned Prescribed
Authority are set aside. Petitioners shall be given last
opportunity to file written statement (within two weeks
from today), which, however, shall be subject to
payment of cost of ₹20,000/- by each of the petitioners
to the respondent/landlord. The time given for filing
written statement shall not be extended any further.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that his clients will extend full cooperation in
early disposal of release applications and they shall not
seek adjournment in the matter.
12. Learned Prescribed Authority is requested to
make endeavour to decide the release application(s), as
early as possible, preferably within four months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Unnecessary adjournment to the parties should be
avoided.
13. With the aforesaid directions, writ petitions
are disposed of.
14. Let certified copy of this order be supplied to
the parties by 23.04.2022, as per rule.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Aswal
