The lack of jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority does not necessarily invalidate the appellate court's findings on the merits of a release application.

Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below dated 4.3.2009, 14.8.2015 and 24.11.2015 are under challenge.

3. The present petition arises out of the release proceeding namely P.A. Case No. 18 of 2005 (Ran Singh vs. Ramesh Chandra) instituted under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of shop no. 766/264 situated at Mohalla Hastinapur Road, near Jain Mandir, Mawana Kala, District Meerut. The need set up in the release application was for the landlord and his son to start a business. The ground of challenge to the order of the release in the present petition is that the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the release application. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mawana was the designated Prescribed Authority for the area in question and, therefore, it was the only competent authority to entertain the release application.

4. The petitioner contested the matter by filing his written statement on 27.7.2006, however, the Prescribed Authority namely the Civil Judge (S.D.), Meerut without any jurisdiction, vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2009 had allowed the release application of the landlord. Aggrieved the appeal under Section 22 of the Act namely Rent Appeal No. 22 of 2009 was filed before the District Judge, Meerut.

5. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner came to know that the trial court namely the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut had no jurisdiction to hear the release application for the shop in question which is situated in Mawana. The Outlying Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) only had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The application 72-Ga was, accordingly, filed before the appellate court with the request to call for a report regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court.

A report was called for which states as under: -

"Sriman Ji,

C.J. (J.D.) se varsh 2005 mein P.A. case ko nirnit karne ka kshetradhikar us samay Sri Rakesh Verma C.J. (J.D.) Mawana ko varsh 2009 mein Sri P.K. Tyagi C.J. (J.D.) Mawana ko P.A. vado ko tay karne ka kshetradhikar tha."

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application 71-Ka seeking permission to amend the written statement as well as the grounds of appeal to challenge the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority at Meerut to hear the release application. The lower appellate court rejected the amendment application on 22.10.2013, aggrieved the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 62081 of 2013 (Ramesh Chandra vs. Ran Singh), which was decided on 19.8.2014 with the observation that the amendment about the territorial jurisdiction of the court is a legal plea and irrespective of the fact that the amendment to this effect in the pleadings has not been permitted, the petitioner was permitted to raise this question at the time of final hearing of the appeal and the appellate court was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

7. On the merits of the release application, it was submitted that the appellant on an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 107(d) of C.P.C. has brought on record of the appellate court that the landlord/respondent was in possession of the shop situated towards north side of the shop in question and the said shop has been let out to one Naushad s/o Akhlakh who was running the said shop under the name and style of "Lucky Juice Corner". The landlord contested it with the plea that there was no shop in the name and style of "Lucky Juice Corner" rather the landlord himself was running his business under the name and style of "Partner Juice Corner" with the help of Naushad s/o Akhlakh, who was his servant.

8. The appeal was dismissed on 14.8.2015 and the release order was affirmed by the Appellate Court, however, on the question of jurisdiction, no findi