Meena Srivastava vs Ram Kishore Tiwari And Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The petitioner has approached this Court against an order dated 14.11.2008 by which the application filed by the petitioner for certain queries, has been rejected. The petitioner submits that initially an application was filed under Section 21 (1)(b) and during pendency of the said application another application was filed and the same was converted under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, meaning thereby it was a combined application. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the evidence on record, the report of Executive Engineer regarding condition of the house in a dilapidated condition as well as sanction of the map and financial condition as required under Rule 17 of the Rules, 1972, was pleased to allow the application vide his judgment and order dated 8.8.2008. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, petitioner filed an appeal which is pending. During pendency of the appeal petitioner filed an application under Section 34(1) of the Act putting about 19 queries and wanted to lead the evidence on that. Further request has been made in the said application for a direction to landlord respondent to submit the reply of the queries and questions raised by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority after due consideration of the claim of the petitioner as well as on the basis of objection raised by the respondent rejected the same vide his judgment and order dated 14.11.2008 holding therein that Prescribed Authority after due consideration on the basis of evidence based on record and was satisfied that there was full compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules has allowed the application and this application has been filed only to delay the proceedings.

I have considered the submissions raised by the petitioner and have perused the record. The Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding on the basis of evidence on record that house in question is about 100 years old which is apparent on the basis of report submitted by the Executive Engineer. The map to this effect as required under Rule 17 has been sanctioned. An affidavit to that effect of the relevant authority stating that map sanctioned in accordance with rules was filed before the Prescribed Authority. As regards the financial status the respondent has also submitted the document and a finding to that effect has also been recorded. Further the Prescribed Authority has also recorded a finding that respondent landlord has assured and has stated that after reconstruction the accommodation will be given to the tenant in compliance of Section 24(2) of the Act.

In view of aforesaid facts, I find that queries made by the petitioner is afterthought and the application under Clause (b) of the aforesaid Rule cannot be allowed and unless and until there is full compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules.

I find no merit in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to costs.