AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.H. Zaidi, J.—Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Vijay Gautam, Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 2be taken on record.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 2972000 passed by respondent No.l whereby the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed.
It appears that proceedings under Section 16(1) (b) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972(U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, were initiated. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the building in question to be released in favour of the petitioner, Smt. Parveen Begum, by the order dated 1961999. Challenging the validity of the said order respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition in this Court. This Court appears to have refused to interfere in the matter for the reason the order of release was revisable under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, challenging the validity of the order dated 1961999, Respondent No. 2 filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the impugned order dated 2972000. Hence, the present petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that there was no justification for the revisional authority to allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and to entertain the revision under Section 18 of the Act.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.
The effect of the order allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be that the parties will have opportunity to contest the case on merit. It does not affect the right of the petitioner. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, observed that the revision filed by respondent No.2 shall be heard and decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the Court below.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.