Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44762 of 2000 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Varshney & Others Respondent :- Adj V & Another Petitioner Counsel :- V.P. Varshney,M.K. Gupta Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,B.S.Misra,H P Dubey,S.C. Kushwaha,S.C. Srivastava,W.H.Khan Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition by the landlord is directed against an
appellate order dated 21.7.2000 by which the appeal of the
respondent tenant against an order enhancing rent under
Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the application
has been rejected.
It appears that the petitioner landlord filed an
application no. 5 of 1991 under Section 21(8) of the Act
against the respondent tenant inter alia with the allegation
that they had purchased the disputed property through a
registered sale deed dated 6.2.1989 wherein the contesting
respondent was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 390/- per month
and as the market value of the premises was very high and the
tenant did not agree to enhance the rent, the necessity for
filing the application.
The respondent contested the application inter alia with
the allegation that U.P. State Electricity Board was the
tenant and he was a servant and therefore, the application
was not maintainable. Further objection was that the market
value as suggested was exorbitant and the rent being paid was
justified. The Rent Controller, after considering all the
evidence on record, allowed the application and fixed the
rent at Rs. 5567/- per month apart from taxes. The respondent
preferred an appeal no. 3 of 1998 and the Additional District
Judge by the impugned order has allowed the appeal on the
ground that the U.P. State Electricity Board was the tenant
which had not been impleaded and therefore, the application
was not maintainable.
2
It is urged that the U.P. State Electricity Board had
been impleaded through the Executive Engineer, the local head
of the office and duly participated in the proceedings and
also preferred appeal, it cannot be said that the Board was
not duly represented.
From the record, it is clear that the respondent was
represented as ” The Executive Engineer, Electricity Circle
Construction Division, U.P. State Electricity Board, 3/1987
Laxmi Bai Marg, Aligarh.” He participated in the proceedings
on behalf of the Board and he also filed the appeal against
enhancement order. Proceedings under the Act are summary in
nature and all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do
not strictly apply. No doubt, the Board is a Body Corporate
which can sue and be sued in its name but the counsel for the
respondent has failed to demonstrate that the interest of the
Board was not common or secured with that of its Executive
Engineer. Admittedly, the Board acts through its officers and
in the present case the office of the Executive Engineer was
situated in the disputed premises. In an identical
circumstance where a release application was rejected by the
High Court on the ground that the Union of India was not
impleaded, the Apex Court in the case of Raja Dharam Pal
Singh Vs. Director Small Industries Services Institutes and
other [1980 ARC 365] held that such an objection was
hypertechnical and that the interest of the Union was
sufficiently represented by its officers already impleaded
and it went on to hold that if the argument were to be
accepted, its challenge before the High Court could not have
been entertained. Similarly in the present case, if the
argument of the counsel for the respondent is accepted, the
appellate order becomes void for the same reasons given in
the appellate order.
Thus, for the reasons above, this petition succeeds and
is allowed and the appellate order dated 21.7.2000 is hereby
quashed and the matter is remanded to the appellate court to
decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties within
3
a period of three months from the date of submission of a
certified copy of this order.
However, keeping in mind the technical objection raised,
let the Board, by whichever name it is called today, be
impleaded as one of the parties.
In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.8.2010
AK