Back
Holds Ex-Parte Eviction Recall Rejection Not Appealable Under Section 22
In a significant ruling that draws a bright line between under the , the has held that an application seeking recall of an —and its rejection—cannot be challenged through a under Section 22 of the Act. Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, sitting singly, emphasized that such recall orders spring from the procedural powers conferred by Section 34 read with the relevant Rules, and do not amount to an adjudication under Section 21.
The decision dismisses a petition under filed by Smt. Bashiran and another, the legal heirs of a deceased tenant, who had lost their tenancy over a shop in Agra after an went unchallenged for the better part of a year.
A Clinic, a Tenancy and the Shadow of an Ex-Parte Order
The dispute traces back to Shop No. 4 at Kachahri Road, Baluganj, Agra. The premises were originally rented to Mohammad Shamim at a monthly rent of Rs. 500. Landlord Smt. Harpal Kaur sought release of the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, asserting she needed it to set up a medical clinic for her qualified son. The tenant contested the case, but after his death in , his legal representatives—the petitioners—were brought on record.
Despite court notices and an explicit opportunity granted by the in to file a written statement, the substituted tenants remained absent. The then passed an on , finding the landlord’s need to be , noting the tenants had alternative business premises, and concluding that tilted against them.
The Tenants’ Gamble: Treating Recall as a Continuation of the Main Case
Instead of filing an appeal against the release order—which they were entitled to do within thirty days—the petitioners approached the with a recall application, claiming they had not been served with notices after substitution and were unaware of the proceedings until . When the rejected this application, they appealed to the under Section 22.
Their central argument, as presented by , was that the recall proceedings are a “continuation” of the original release case and that any order passed therein—positive or negative—partakes the character of an order under Section 21. A restrictive reading, they contended, would leave a tenant remediless.
Landlord’s Counter: The Statute Speaks Clearly
On behalf of the landlord, maintained that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be stretched by judicial interpretation. Section 22, he argued, permits an appeal only against orders passed under Sections 21 and 24. The , by contrast, flows from the procedural reservoir of Section 34 and Rule 22(b), which merely equip the authority with powers analogous to a civil court—no more.
Inside the Court’s Analysis: Source, not Subject, Determines Character
Justice Srivastava dismantled the tenants’ construct by focusing on a principle of statutory interpretation: “The .” Because the ’s power to recall an ex-parte order is rooted in Section 34—a purely procedural provision—the resulting order does not metamorphose into a Section 21 adjudication, even though it arises from a release proceeding.
The judge further noted that accepting the petitioners’ logic would have absurd consequences: every interlocutory or ancillary order (on amendment, adjournment, etc.) could be labelled as an order under Section 21, rendering the legislative cap on appeals meaningless and defeating the object of expeditious disposal of rent disputes.
“”
The court did not stop at the question of maintainability. Even while examining the merits of the recall plea, it found no ground to disturb the ’s conclusions. The record showed that notices were sent to the substituted legal representatives by registered post, an objection regarding service was raised and decided in , and the —out of abundant caution—still gave them additional time to file a written statement. They chose not to act.
Quoting the Latin maxim —the law assists the vigilant, not those who slumber over their rights—Justice Srivastava observed: “The petitioners have failed to establish that they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control from participating in the proceedings. Their explanation is founded principally upon a generalized plea of non-service and lack of knowledge, unsupported by any reliable material capable of displacing the judicial record.”
Key Takeaways for Rent Control Litigation
The ruling underscores three critical points for practitioners and litigants:
- A recall application against an is a procedural remedy; its rejection is not appealable under Section 22 of the U.P. Rent Act.
- A party aggrieved by an must file a regular within the limitation period; ignoring that avenue and later seeking recall cannot create an appeal where none exists.
- Courts will not lightly set aside ex-parte orders where the record demonstrates service of notice and a litigant’s own inaction—mere allegations of non-service, without cogent evidence, are insufficient.
The High Court, therefore, declined to exercise its under Article 227, finding no , or in the orders passed by the and the . The petition was dismissed, leaving the release order in favour of the landlord intact.
Case Details:
Matters Under Article 227 No. 3192 of 2026
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Judgment dated .
