JUDGMENT Yatindra Singh, J.
1. This is a tenant's writ petition for quashing of the order dated 26.2.1999 passed by District Magistrate, Meerut refusing to entertain the transfer application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he has no Jurisdiction to entertain such application. According to the District Magistrate, the District Judge is appellate/revising authority under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act for short), the transfer application is maintainable before him only.
Facts
2. Sri Prabhat Banerjee was initially owner and landlord of the premises In dispute. He sold it to Sri Om Veer Singh on 11.3.1997. He is now the owner and landlord of the premises in question. Petitioner is a tenant at the rate Rs. 200 per month. The landlord filed an application on 17.6,1998 under Section 16 of the Act, before the District Supply Officer (Respondent No. 2). He brought to his notice that the tenant has removed his belongings from the disputed premises and it has become vacant. It may be released in his favour. An inspection report was also submitted. Subsequently, the tenant filed an application dated 23.2.1999 to transfer the case from District Supply Officer to any other competent officer. This application was also supported by an affidavit. It was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Meerut on 26.2.1999 holding that he has no Jurisdiction to entertain transfer application. It should be filed before the District Judge.
Point for Determination
3. I have heard Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Singhal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the District Magistrate, Meerut and District Supply Officer, Meerut. The following point arises for determination.
Has the District Magistrate power to transfer the case ; or should the transfer application be filed before the District Judge, who is a revisional/appellate authority under the Act?
Findings
4. It is true that under the Act, the District Judge is an appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act. He is also a revisional authority under Section 18 of the Act. But this is not sufficient to hold that he has Jurisdiction to transfer cases.
5. Section 3 (c) of the Act defines the word 'District Magistrate'. It includes any officer authorised by him to exercise, perform or discharge all or any of his powers, functions and duties under the Act. It also says that different officers may be authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases. This clause is not merely a clause. It also gives certain powers to the District Magistrate. This is to recall any case from any such officer to whom his powers may be delegated to and dispose of the case himself or to transfer it to any other such officer for disposal. This shows that District Magistrate has got power to transfer the cases from any such officer and decide himself. He may. if there is any other officer exercising same functions and duties under the Act.
transfer the case to him. It cannot be said that the 'District Magistrate' has no power to transfer the case. The order passed by the District Magistrate Is Illegal.
A Caveat
6. This petition was filed as a fresh petition. No notice was served upon the landlord. I have held the order of the District Magistrate to be illegal; without hearing the landlord. There are few reasons for doing so. Firefly the District Magistrate, Meerut had passed the order without hearing the landlord. Secondly. I have heard the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the District Magistrate. Thirdly, the Section 3 (c) of the Act was clear. Admitting petition may have caused unnecessary delay in the proceeding. This has to be avoided. It is rightly remarked by Lord Denning 'Lams delays have been intolerable. They have lasted so long as to turn justice sour. New tools with new ideas have to be forged for solving the arrears. But I may have made a mistake. It is for this reason that I also give liberty to the landlord to file an application for recall of this order in case he is so advised.
Conclusion
7. The writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 26.2.1999 passed by District Magistrate, Meerut is hereby quashed. It goes without saying that landlord has liberty as mentioned above. The District Magistrate shall decide the transfer application on merits : and without being influenced of any observation made by me in the judgment.