M/S Laxmi Construction and Another vs Rent Authority Additional District Magistrate Administration and 7 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116230

Court No. - 2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8420 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Laxmi Construction And Another Respondent :- Rent Authority Additional District Magistrate Administration And 7 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satyavrat Sahai,Sunil Dutt Kautilya

¶5

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Dutt Kautilya, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

A short contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Rent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur whereby the application under Rule 34 (H) read with Rule 11(D) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 filed by respondent nos.3 & 4 for recalling/setting aside the order dated 07.09.2022 passed in Case No.2082 of 2022 (Computerised Case No.D202209600002082) (Ashish Kumar S/o Laxmi Kumar Vs. Harsh Goyal S/o Sri Virendra Goyal) has been allowed without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶8

It is further contended that the only fact recorded with regard to service of application in the order is that notice was sent by the registered post and the receipt has been filed, but petitioner is not present. It is contended that satisfaction of service of notice has not been recorded, and in such view of the fact, petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing to contest the application. It is submitted that the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the authority in Case No.2082 of 2022 has attained finality as challenge to the said order has travelled upto Apex Court, and the Apex Court has affirmed the order dated 07.09.2022, and despite the undertaking given by the respondents for vacating the premises, they in order to frustrate the order passed by the Apex Court and undertaking given by them for vacating the premises have filed the aforesaid application under Rule 34(H) read with Rule 11(D) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021. Accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

¶9

To the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondents

¶10

would contend that it is evident from the impugned order that notice has been sent to the petitioner by registered post, and petitioner did not appear, therefore, impugned order is not an exparte order.

¶11

Be that as it may, the relevant extract of the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Rent Authority with regard to service of notice upon petitioner is reproduced herein below:-

¶12

" पसत आववदनपतककसतनववईहवततववपककगणपरउनकवसहकपतवपरननवटसरजजसटरर रवकसवजवरकवकयवगयवहह , असलरसकदरवकपतववलकपरउपलबधहह , परनततववपककगण उपसससतनहहहहयव। "

¶13

Perusal of application of respondent nos.3 & 4 shows that application is dated 30.04.2025. It is obvious that notice upon the petitioner would have been sent after 30.04.2025. The Rent Authority without recording the satisfaction of service of notice and without verifying the fact as to whether service of notice has been affected upon the petitioner proceeded to decide the application on assumption that since the receipt of registry has been filed, therefore, notice is sufficient.

¶14

Considering the fact that matter has been travelled upto the Apex Court, and the Apex Court has affirmed the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the authority in Case No.2082 of 2022, this Court is of the view that it is a case where this Court should grant indulgence to the petitioner in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the order impugned being in violation of principles of natural justice and remand the matter to the Rent Authority to decide the same afresh.

¶15

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Rent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Saharanpur is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Rent Authority to decide the application of respondent nos.3 & 4 under Rule 34(H) read with Rule 11(D) of U.P. Act No.16 of 2021 afresh strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Sattyarth

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Laxmi Construction and Another v. Rent Authority Additional District Magistrate Administration and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Laxmi Construction and Another v. Rent Authority Additional District Magistrate Administration and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Asha Devi vs Satish Singh Rajpoot

Smt Savita Gupta @ Nikki vs Ankit Gupta

Smt Anchal Singh vs Sushil Kumar Singh

Balvindar Singh vs Kishan Lal Srivastava

Smt Sonawati and 2 Others vs Pankaj Kumar Jain and 3 Others

Km.Chinu Rani and Another Vs Rijwan and Others