AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj K. Tiwari, J
Petitioners are tenant in respect of residential premises. Respondent claims to be the landlord of the said premises. He filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 13 of 1972") seeking release of the said premises. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 03.11.2018. Petitioners filed an appeal under Section 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972, which is pending before District Judge, Nainital. Before the appellate court, petitioners filed an application for issuing a Commission. The said application was rejected by learned appellate court vide order dated 29.04.2019 with cost of Rs. 1.00 lakh. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 29.04.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his challenge only to imposition of cost of Rs.1.00 lakh upon the petitioners. According to him, costs can be imposed only in situations contemplated under Section 35-A and 35-B of Code of Civil Procedure, which according to him is not the case here. He further submits that while exercising power under Act No.13 of 1972, cost can be imposed by the District Judge only under Section 34(1)(e) of the Act, which reads as under:-
" 34. Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them - (1) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any appellate or revising authority shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely-
(a)......
(b).....
(c).......
(d)......
(e) awarding, subject to any rules made in that behalf, costs or special costs to any party or requiring security for costs from any party"
Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that since no rules have been framed for imposition of costs or special costs in terms of Section 34(1) (e) of Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, the Appellate Court/District Judge, Nainital was not justified in imposing exemplary cost upon the petitioners. He further submits that Appellate Court has requested the District Magistrate to recover the amount of costs as arrears of land revenue in case petitioners fail to deposit the same within thirty days. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioners is impermissible in view of the provision contained in Section 34(3) of Act No. 13 of 1972, which provides that for recovery of costs, a party has to approach the Court of Small Causes.
Per contra, Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent refers to Rule 22 (c) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 and submits that court has power to award costs and special costs to any successful party against an unsuccessful party. The said rule is extracted below:-
"22. Powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or the appellate or revising authority shall, for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under the Act, shall have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely -
(a)..............
(b)..........
(c) the power to award costs and special costs to any successful party against an unsuccessful party."
I have gone through the impugned order passed by learned Appellate Court. The sole reason for imposition of costs is that tenants (petitioners herein) had filed similar application for issuing of Commission before learned Prescribed Authority also, which was rejected. A perusal of the application moved by the petitioners for issuance of Commission before Appellate Court indicates that they had given justification for moving another application by stating that the circumstances have now changed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that imposition of costs of Rs.1.00 lakh upon the petitioners is unjustified. Accordingly, the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by learned District Judge is modified and the amount of costs is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, out of which Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited in Bar Fund, Nainital and Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Nainital, within a period of two weeks from today.
With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.