The main legal point established is that while specific provisions of the Code may not be applicable, the principles underlying them may be invoked under Section 151 of the Code to prevent abuse of process and meet the ends of justice in summary proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

PROLOGUE

1. The instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.11.2021 passed in P.A. Case No. 5 of 2020, Smt. Rukmani vs. Prabhat Kishor, by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Prescribed Authority, Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the case”). By it, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) has been rejected and the petitioner has been directed to file objections on the application for release, filed by the respondent, under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (“the Act”).

2. During the course of hearing, on 24.02.2023, a Single Bench of this Court observed that the judgment in the case of Majid Khan vs. Gopal Krishna Verma, (2016) 116 ALR 281, on the subject, needs reconsideration. Accordingly, the instant matter has been referred for consideration of the Larger Bench for examining the correctness of ratio laid down in the case of Majid Khan (supra).

3. In the case of Majid Khan (supra), while considering the applicability of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code in the proceedings under the provisions of the Act, it was held that “Perusal of Section 34 and Rule 22 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 would make it clear that only few provisions of C.P.C. are made applicable in the cases arising under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. I am afraid that order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. is not made applicable in the rent control proceedings, therefore, provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 C.P.C. are not available to the tenant petitioner herein.”

ARGUMENTS

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

THE PETITIONER

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code are not made applicable in the proceedings under the Act, the principles would still be applicable by invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the cases of Pt. Chet Ram Sharma vs. 1st Additional District Judge, Meerut and Others, 2004 SCC Online All. 818, Sheo Kishan Das vs. Prescribed Authority Pilibhit and Another, 1980 SCC Online All. 259 and Sovintorg (India) Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi, (1999) 6 SCC 406.

6. In the case of Pt. Chet Ram Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court observed as follows:

“27. From the aforesaid, it is clear that when there is no remedy available or where though such remedy is available, it is just and expedient in the interest of justice that such power is exercised under section 151 of the C.P.C. The Courts have power in the absence of any express or implied prohibition to pass an order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.”

7. In the case of Sheo Kishan Das (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court observed as hereunder:

“15. In the case of Gangadhar vs. Raghubar Dayal, AIR 1975 All 102 : 1974 All. L.J. 751, a Full Bench of this Court has held that S. 145 of the Civil P.C. was not exhaustive of the power of the court to grant restitution and that such restitution can also be granted in a suitable case in the exercise of the inherent powers vested in it. Even though S. 144 of the Civil P.C. did not in terms apply to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, the principles underlying S. 151 had been expressly made applicable to proceedings under the Act.”

8. In the case of Sovintorg (India) Ltd. (supra), one of the issues before the Hon’ble Supreme court was payment of interest under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “Interest cannot be claimed under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code as its provisions have not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. We, however, find that the general provision of Section 34 being based