JUDGMENT
A.K. Yog, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by Suraj Singh
Saini claiming to be tenant of house No. 90, Bag Bhatari, G.T. Road near Chawadhary Mod district Ghaziabad. Father-in-law of respondent No. 2 was the landlord, who filed release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called ‘the Act’). The tenant petitioner contested the same and that parties had opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases under law.
2. Landlord had filed release application under Section 25 of the Act earlier in 1974 (case No. 21 of
1974) but the same was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated June 7,
1975/Annexure-5 to the petition.
3. The landlord filed another application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act (being Rent Case No. 6 of 1993). The tenant filed objections dated 3.2.1994 after parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The prescribed authority allowed release application vide judgment and order dated November 27, 1999 (Annexure-6 to the petition) holding that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and that by not allowing the release application landlord was to suffer more hardship as compared to the hardship suffered by the tenant.
4. Feeling aggrieved the tenant petitioner filed P.A. Appeal No. 220 of 1999, Suraj Singh v. Smt. Mevis Mikel and others.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, an application (paper No. 32C) was filed by the tenant for issuing commission with direction to submit report in the light of the contentions made in the said application (paper No. 32C). The said application was opposed by filing objection (paper No. 34C) primarily objecting that said application was filed with intention to delay hearing of the appeal as well as pointed out that Prescribed Authority had found that tenant had an alternative accommodation (House No. 93 Model Town, Poorvi Ghaziabad). The
authority hearing the appeal in question rejected the said application vide judgment and order dated July 31, 2001 (Annexure-8 to the petition).
6. The Rent Appeal No. 220 of 1999 referred to above, came up for final hearing and the same has been dismissed by appellate authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act vide judgment and order dated January 9, 2002/Annexure-9 to the petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has made two submissions before this Court :
“First submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that family settlement was not registered and hence family settlement relied upon by the landlord could not be relied upon inasmuch as an unregistered family settlement was inadmissible in evidence. Contents of said family settlement are being reproduced at the bottom of the release application copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the petition), and it shows that document in question is a memorandum of family settlement regarding certain facts which had been agreed upon by the parties for mutual settlement amongst themselves.”
8. Relying upon the decision rendered by Apex Court in the case of Roshan Singh and others v, Zila Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 881, the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ashok Kitmar Seth v. IVth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, 1993 ACJ 1113, vide para 7 held that–“It is well-settled that a memorandum depicting that there has been a settlement in the family does not require registration. See Roshan Singh (supra). In the present case the document filed by the landlord was to be a memorandum of family settlement by the respondent No. 2 and consequently no registration was required and the said document was admissible in evidence.”
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Bankey Bihari v. Surya Narain alias Munnoo, 1998 (3) AWC 1616 : 1998 (89) RD 508, para 12 (A. K. Banerjl, J.). There is no quarrel with the proposition laid down in the said case wherein this Court in paras 8 and 12 held that–“When by document in question the ancestral property was divided by metes and bounds between two real brothers such documents requires registration. The learned single Judge, however, also observed that it was well-settled law that family arrangement does not require registration if it was oral and only a memorandum is being recorded.”
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma alias Lakkamma v. Sombegowda s/o Kodigowda and others, AIR 1995 Kar 326 (SJ). I am afraid that said decision does not lay down that memorandum of family settlement requires registration. On the other hand, the decision confirms the view taken by learned single Judge in the case of Bankey Bihari (supra).
11. In view of the above, I find that this decision also does not help the petitioner.
12. Second submission of the petitioner is that issues were not framed.
13. The proceedings under the Act are not governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as such. The proceedings before the rent control authorities under the Act are governed by the special provisions contained therein (particularly Section 34) and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any provision framed under the Rules, which required the Prescribed Authority, under Section 21 of the Act to frame issues.
14. Moreover, the fact that Prescribed Authority did not frame issues cannot be a ground to vitiate the judgments in question for the
reason that (i) framing of issues is meant to identify the issues on which parties are at contest and hence, required to be adjudicated by the Court.
15. If the parties had led evidence, being conscious of the issue in controversy and required to be adjudicated, and suffered no prejudice on this score, then framing of issue becomes a sheer formality and no one suffers on this score.
16. Raising objection at later stage, on this score, is of no consequence if party raising the objection fails to establish-the prejudice rendered to him and such an objection will not be a sufficient ground for vitiating the judgment.
17. In other words, non-framing of issues is not an unexceptionable requirement of ‘Rule of Procedure’.
18. It is now well-settled, as held in various decisions by the Apex Court that non-framing of issue is of no consequence if party had suffered no prejudice on that score, i.e., the parties contested the case, being fully aware of the issues required to be adjudicated.
19. I find that parties had led evidence being aware of the issues to be adjudicated and none of the parties had suffered prejudice.
20. It is also to be noted in the present case that no such objection was promptly and at the first opportunity taken before the Prescribed Authority and not even before the appellate court. Hence, the objection regarding non-framing of issues, being purely technical and only for the sake of argument in the present proceedings, cannot be permitted to be raised at this belated stage.
21. The impugned orders suffer from no manifest error apparent on the face of record.
22. Petition lacks merit. Accordingly dismissed in limine at the admission stage.
No order as to costs.