9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions under U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 and U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972. 2. Validity of filing a second application for eviction after the dismissal of the first suit. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in setting aside orders. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved the interpretation of provisions under the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, and the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972. The respondent obtained permission under the old Act, and later filed an application for eviction under section 43(2)(rr) of the New Act. The High Court determined that the landlord had the right to file the second application under the amended provision, which allowed for enforcement of previously obtained permissions without the need for a new suit. The Court held that the permission obtained was still valid despite the dismissal of the first suit on technical grounds. Issue 2: The central issue was whether the landlord had the right to file a second application for eviction after the dismissal of the initial suit based on the permission obtained under the old Act. The Prescribed Authority initially rejected the application under section 43(2)(rr) on the grounds that the permission had been exhausted. However, the High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that the purpose of the permission was not fulfilled with the dismissal of the first suit and that subsequent action was not precluded if the first suit was not decided on its merits. Issue 3: Regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court addressed a technical breach in the appeal process. The High Court set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority, even though technically no appeal lay before the District Judge. The Supreme Court acknowledged this technical breach but upheld the decision of the High Court, emphasizing that justice had been served by setting aside the improper order of the Prescribed Authority. The Court declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, concluding that the appeal must fail, with no order as to costs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court regarding the landlord's right to file a second application for eviction under the amended provision of the New Act. The Court upheld the validity of the permission obtained under the old Act and emphasized the importance of finality in judicial proceedings.
|
