Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5787 of 2010 Petitioner :- Moinuddin Respondent :- Syed Mustafa Husain Abidi & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Iqbal Ahmad Respondent Counsel :- K.N. Nirkhi Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by
the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in
Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2007 by which learned Prescribed Authority has
rejected the petitioner’s adjournment application and fixed a date for adducing
evidence.
The facts giving rise to this case are that the land lord Syed Mustafa Husain
Abidi has filed an application for releasing the accommodation in dipute
under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulations of Lettilng Rent
& Eviction )Act, 1972. It appears that during the pendency of the said release
application, the landlord has died and present respondents have filed
substitution application and also sought amendment in the release application.
That was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 21.10.2009 fixing
22.12.2009 for filing additional objections. On 22.12.2009 the adjournment
was sought by the petitioner and case was adjourned for 06.01.2010. On
06.01.2010 further adjournment was sought and it was allowed on payment of
Rs.300/- as costs fixing 16.01.2010. On 16.1.2010 another adjournment
application was filed which has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority.
Sri Iqbal Ahmad learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
court below has illegally rejected the adjournment application and it ought to
have granted time to file additional objection. In his submissions in case this
order is allowed to sustain the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury.
Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.N.Nirkhi
learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has filed only
adjournment application and not sought time for filing additional objections.
Hence the application has rightly been rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considerilng the closed proximity of the date fixed on adjournments sought I
find it appropriate that the court below ought to have granted adjournment for
filing additional objection as admittedly no additional objection has yet been
filed. In absence of additional objection there will be serious prejudice to the
petitioner. In view of that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 16.1.2010 passed by court below is hereby quashed.The
petitioner may file his additional objections by 18.2.2010 along with
Rs.1000/- as costs imposed on the petitioner payable to the respondents.
Thereafter Prescribed Authority shall decide the release application very
expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned
counsel for the parties keeping in mind the pendency of the release
applications of that very year.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010
PKB