9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Article 226 challenging orders rejecting release application under U.P. Urban Buildings Act - Appellate court's arbitrary order without reasons - Consideration of bonafide need of landlord - Applicability of Explanation (iv) of Section 21 - Duty of appellate court to consider evidence and give reasons for decision - Quashing of appellate court's judgment and remand for fresh decision. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 226 challenging orders related to the release of a portion of a house under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act. The landlords had applied for release, which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge in appeal. The main contention was the arbitrary nature of the appellate order without providing reasons or considering evidence, specifically regarding the bonafide need of the landlords. The District Judge's judgment was found to be deficient as it did not adequately consider the bonafide need of the landlords. The judgment only briefly touched upon this crucial aspect without any discussion of evidence or reasons for the decision. Reference was made to a previous case highlighting the importance of the appellate court's duty to judicially consider facts and circumstances before giving a decision. The judgment also discussed the applicability of Explanation (iv) of Section 21 of the Act, emphasizing that the need of the landlord is the primary consideration for a release application. The judgment cited a Full Bench decision regarding the retrospective nature of certain provisions, clarifying the legal position on this matter. Furthermore, the judgment outlined the duty of the appellate court to state points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons for the decision, especially in cases of affirmance. It stressed the importance of the appellate court's thorough consideration of evidence and articulation of reasons to ensure a just and non-arbitrary decision-making process. Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the District Judge's judgment lacked legal validity due to the absence of proper reasoning and consideration of evidence. The judgment was quashed, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, bringing closure to the legal dispute.
|
