Madan Gopal Bagla vs First Additional District Judge and Others

S.D. Agarwala, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order rejecting the revision as time barred.

The Petitioner is the landlord. Opposite party No. 3 is the allottee. In respect of the property in dispute on 8th August 1978 the following order was passed: "Allot on existing rent.'''' Thereafter on 19th August 1978 an allotment order was issued in the form prescribed in Form ? under Rule 12 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to an the Rules. This allotment order was served on the landlord Petitioner on 23rd August 1978. A revision was filed against the said order u/s 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 29th August 1978. The revision was dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 13th September 1979 as being barred by time. It may be noted that after filing the revision the Petitioner also, as an abundant caution, moved an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in moving the application in revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the allotment order was passed on 19th August 1978 and as such u/s 18 of the Act he had a right to file a revision within fifteen days of the said order, since the revision was filed within fifteen days of 19th August 1978 the revision was within time and as such the order passed in revision is manifestly erroneous. learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 has, on the other hand, urged that the order passed on 8th August, 1978 was in fact the allotment order and the subsequent order prepared in Form ? was only a clerical act as such the order should be taken as of 8th August 1978. If that be the position the revision would clearly be time barred.

Section 16(1)(a) of the Act provides that the District Magistrate may by order require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant to another person specified in the order. Rule 12 of the Rules provides that the allotment order has to be issued in Form B. An order passed by the District Magistrate allotting the premises to a person cannot take effect unless an order in Form ? is passed allotting the premises to the person concerned and directing the landlord to let such building to such person. The allotment order contemplated u/s 16 of the Act is, therefore, a direction to the landlord to let out the premises to the person in whose favour the allotment order was passed. The formal order has to be in the form as specified in Form ? specified by Rule 12 of the Rules. The order referred to in Section 18 of the Act is, therefore, an order in Form as prescribed in Rule 12 of the Rules. It is a formal order u/s 16 of the Act which is revisable u/s 18 of the Act and Section 18 of the Act, therefore, clearly provides that a revision can be filed within fifteen days of the date of such order. The date of such order as used in Section 18 of the Act would mean the date of the formal order issued u/s 16 of the Act in Form B.

In view of the above the order which was revisable was an order which was issued on 19th August 1978 in Form ? and as such the revision filed on 29th August 1978 was well within time and it was not necessary at all for the Petitioner to have moved an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

In the result the petition is allowed, the Impugned order dated 13th September 1979 is quashed and the 1st Additional District Judge, Aligarh, is directed to decide the revision on merits in accordance with law. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.