9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional Competence of the Prescribed Authority 2. Application of the 'De-facto Doctrine' 3. Rule of Merger and Rule of Finality 4. Alleged Breach of Undertaking by Respondents Summary: 1. Jurisdictional Competence of the Prescribed Authority: The primary issue was whether the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority u/s 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, was null and void due to the Prescribed Authority lacking the requisite qualifications. The appellant contended that Shri Senger, the Prescribed Authority, did not possess the necessary experience as a First Class Magistrate. However, the court found that Shri Senger had been conferred the powers of a First Class Magistrate by a General Notification dated 6.2.1968, which was duly published in the Official Gazette. The court held that the experience gained by Shri Senger as a Second Class Magistrate, while concurrently having the powers of a First Class Magistrate, satisfied the requirements of Section 3(e) of the Act. 2. Application of the 'De-facto Doctrine': The court applied the 'de-facto doctrine,' which states that acts performed by a person under the color of lawful authority are valid even if the appointment is later found to be defective. The court concluded that even if Shri Senger's appointment was defective, the order of release passed by him could not be impugned as he held the office under the color of lawful authority and not as a usurper. 3. Rule of Merger and Rule of Finality: The appellant argued that the rule of merger would not apply where there is a total lack of jurisdiction in the Tribunal or Court of first instance. However, the court did not find it necessary to delve into this issue, as it had already concluded that Shri Senger was competent to act as a Prescribed Authority. The court also noted that the rule of finality of judgments would apply, making the original order immune from attack once confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 4. Alleged Breach of Undertaking by Respondents: The appellant claimed that the respondents had breached their undertaking to the court by illegally dispossessing them from the leased portions. The court found that the recovery of possession occurred due to a misunderstanding about the period of force of the undertaking. The respondents believed that the undertaking had ended and took possession nearly two months after the specified period. The court did not find sufficient grounds to sustain the charge of breach of undertaking and illegal recovery of possession. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the court directed the parties to bear their respective costs. The court upheld the validity of the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority, applying the 'de-facto doctrine' and finding no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding jurisdictional incompetence and breach of undertaking.
|
