1998 (8) TMI 636 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Tenant's writ petition challenging the lower appellate court's decision regarding the release application made by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

Analysis:
1. The landlord filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, stating the need for the disputed accommodation for residential purposes due to changed circumstances. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application initially, but the landlord appealed to the District Judge, who allowed the appeal. The tenant challenged this decision in a writ petition.

2. The tenant contended that the lower appellate court erred in not considering the affidavits filed in support of the defense, as they were sworn before a Notary and not an Oath Commissioner. The tenant argued that this led to a miscarriage of justice, citing a previous case where affidavits sworn before a Notary were deemed admissible. The tenant emphasized that non-consideration of material evidence vitiates a finding of fact and requested the court to interfere.

3. The tenant further argued that if the appellate authority found the affidavits defective, it should have either rejected them before the judgment or allowed the petitioner to rectify the defects. Emphasizing that procedural rules should not hinder justice, the tenant highlighted the principle that strict enforcement of the law can sometimes lead to the severest injustice.

4. The court, after considering the arguments, concluded that the lower appellate court's judgment could not be sustained. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the appellate authority's judgment, and remanded the case back for a fresh decision, instructing the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs in the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by the tenant, the legal principles invoked, and the court's decision to set aside the lower appellate court's judgment for reconsideration in accordance with the law.