AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Sahai, J.—The only question in this petition is if the Prescribed Authority could have ignored the affidavit filed by Petitioner, only because it was not in reply to affidavit filed by the other side.
Opposite party is the tenant. He filed an application u/s 26 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for restoration of water tap in the condition it was. It was objected y Petitioner. Both parties filed affidavits. The Prescribed Authority refused to look into affidavit of Petitioner as it was not counter affidavit. According to him as it was filed before filing of opposite party''s evidence, by way of affidavit, it was no evidence.
That a Judical Officer should have taken such a view is indeed surprising. The affidavit filed by Petitioner did not become inadmissible or irrelevant only because it was filed prior to affidavit of opposite party. It could not be ignored only because it was not counter affidavit. For whatever worth it was evidence which should have been examined. As the Prescribed Authority refused to look into evidence which was admissible and material the order is vitiated.
In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by revising authority is quashed. He shall decide the application of opposite party afresh on merit in accordance with law expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.