Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3855 of 2001. Case: Kamal Mehta Vs Additional District Judge and Ors.. Uttarakhand High Court

Case Number:Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3855 of 2001
Party Name:Kamal Mehta Vs Additional District Judge and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Vikas Bahaguna, Adv. and For Respondents: R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel
Judges:Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Issue:Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 12, 16, 3(a)
Citation:AIR 2015 Utr 93
Judgement Date:January 07, 2015
Court:Uttarakhand High Court


Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

  1. This is a writ petition by the petitioner who challenges orders passed by the Rent Control Authorities under Section 12 and thereafter under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as "the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972"). This writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad way back in the year 1993. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 11.08.1993 by learned single Judge, which reads as under:-

    Issue notice.

    Until further orders the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute.

    It is not clear from the officer report as to whether respondent No. 3 was served by the petitioner, as till date there is no counter-affidavit on record on behalf of any of the respondents.

  2. This writ petition stood transferred to this Court under the provisions of Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. It was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28-3-2006, by the following orders:-

    "None appears for the petitioner(s). Though called twice.

    The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

    Interim order dt. 11-08-1973 stands vacated."

  3. Prior to it, there is an order dated 03.05.2005, which is the service report of the office, which says that "O.P. No. 3 - unserved due to incorrect address".

  4. Now after a period of eight years since the dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution, an application (MCC No. 8 of 2015) for recalling the said order dated 28.03.2006 along with the delay condonation application (CLMA No. 55 of 2015) has been filed. According to the present petitioner/applicant, he could get knowledge of the dismissal only in the year 2014 when execution proceedings were initiated by the landlord. He further states that the delay has been caused due to medical condition etc., Although, there is an inordinate delay in the matter but purely in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and for the same reasons restoration application is also allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number.

  5. Now the matter is being argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikas Bahaguna, Advocate and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Heard on the merits.

  6. The petitioner in this matter has enjoyed a stay order of the Court for more than 20 years. Strangely the...

To continue reading