The appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding issues without remitting to the Prescribed Authority, violating procedural fairness in landlord-tenant disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for tenant petitioner and Shri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for landlord respondent.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order passed by the rent appellate authority only on the point that rent appellate authority could not have framed the issues inviting additional evidence determining the same as if it was court of first instance instead of remanding the matter to the Prescribed Authority to take decision on points of bona fide need and comparative hardships more especially in the circumstances when the Prescribed Authority had not dealt with those points for it returned findings to the effect that there existed no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner.

3. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate submits petitioner is not challenging the findings of the lower appellate authority on the point of existence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner, however, on the point of bona fide need for which the release application was filed as well as comparative hardships, the appellate authority ought to have remitted the matter to the Prescribed Authority to return its findings of fact on the said above two points comparative hardship as well. Mr. Singh, submitted that in the matter of rent appeal filed under Section 20 (2) of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act No. 13 of 1972’) while the procedure as prescribed for under Section 10 (2) is to be applied, the appellate authority could have invited additional evidence to meet the points raised before it as to the findings returned in the order qua the issues for which the evidence if were invited and led. Since there was no such point decided by the Prescribed Authority, all the more there was no occasion for the appellate authority to have invited any additional evidence as there was no judgment before it on the points, to be evaluated as to the core issue of correctness of reasonings.

4. In support of his submission, learned Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to the findings part of the order of the appellate authority wherein it has been categorically recorded that on the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships no evidence was available on record received from the Prescribed Authority. Thus, according Mr. Singh, the appellate authority has virtually exceeded its authority and jurisdiction in deciding the matter as the court of first instance resulting in the denial of opportunity of statutory appeal against the order of release so passed by it.

5. Learned Advocate in support of his submission as to exercise of power by the appellate authority in framing points and receiving evidence has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Malluru Mallappa (D) thr. LRS v. Kuruvathappa & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1485 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No. 18092 of 2014 decided on 12.02.2020. He has placed before the Court paragraph-14 of the said judgment.

6. Meeting the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Shri Dayal, learned Senior Advocate sought to defend the order on the point that the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships were very well framed by the Prescribed Authority and the order of the Prescribed Authority also reflects that the parties had led sufficient documentary evidence. He sought to urge that in view of the provision as contained under Section 10 (2) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the additional evidence could have been taken by the rent appellate authority and the power under Section 10 are wider than the powers otherwise as contemplated under the general civil law under the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It is also submitted that merely because