Court affirms procedural nature of recall order and limits of appeal under U.P. Urban Buildings Act
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J., dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal against an ex parte release order. The case, involving a dispute over a commercial tenancy in Agra, revolved around the interpretation of procedural and substantive rights under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
The petitioners, Smt. Bashiran and another, sought to contest the ex parte release order dated December 22, 2023, which favoured the respondent-landlord, Smt. Harpal Kaur. The landlord had successfully argued her bona fide requirement for the premises to establish a clinic for her son. The original tenant had participated in the proceedings, but after his demise, the petitioners, as legal heirs, failed to engage actively, leading to the ex parte order.
The Prescribed Authority had rejected the recall application filed by the petitioners, holding that the procedural requirements had been duly met and service was sufficient. The petitioners' subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act, a decision now upheld by the High Court.
The High Court clarified that the right of appeal under Section 22 is confined to substantive orders passed under Sections 21 and 24 of the Act. It emphasized that procedural orders, such as those concerning the recall of ex parte judgments, do not fall within the purview of appealable orders under Section 22. The court further ruled that procedural powers exercised under Section 34 of the Act, which includes recall of orders, are distinct from the substantive adjudication of tenant-landlord disputes.
Addressing the petitioners' claim of insufficient service, the court noted the judicial presumption of the correctness of service records, which the petitioners failed to refute with credible evidence. The court observed that the petitioners exhibited a lack of due diligence, and their absence was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence.
In conclusion, the court found no jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity in the decisions of the lower authorities. It reiterated the limitations of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or correcting factual findings unless a manifest illegality is evident.
This judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between procedural and substantive orders in landlord-tenant disputes and reaffirms the statutory confines of appellate rights under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
Bottom line:-
Appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is not maintainable against an order rejecting an application for recall of an ex parte release order, as such orders are procedural in nature and not substantive adjudications under Sections 21 or 24 of the Act.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 Sections 21, 22, 34, Rule 22(b); Constitution of India, 1950 Article 227.
Smt. Bashiran v. Smt. Harpal Kaur, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2938235
