AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rama Goel for the contesting respondent.
This petition is directed against an order dated 10.9.2007 by which an application of the petitioner tenant for deciding an alleged Jurisdictional issue before deciding the suit itself has been rejected.
Therespondent landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed premises on the ground of bona fide need etc. which was registered as RA. Case No. 9 of 2004. After the parties had led their evidence and the matter was fixed for argument the petitioner raisegl a new objection vide his application dated 31.8.2007 contending that the application itself was not maintainable. By the impugned order the prescribed authority has merely held that the same can be decided at the time of final hearing.
It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the prescribed authority was bound to decide the Jurisdictional issue before deciding the suit itself.
While noticing the facts, it is cleared that the application for three years when the application raising objection was filed. It is also apparent that the petitioner does not suffer in any manner by the order which has been passed by the prescribed authority. In fact, it is for the benefit of both the parties that the release application be decided finally at an early date. Accordingly, the argument cannot be accepted.
For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Considering that sufficient time has lapsed after finding of the application, the prescribed authority is directed to decide the case expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.