JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia challenging the orders dated 17th February. 1988, 6th April, 1988 and 12.8.1988, which have been annexed as Annexures-5, 6 and7 to the writ petition.
2. It appears that the respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the shop situated in Kasba and Tehsil Bhongaon district Mainpuri. The petitioner was the tenant of the said shop on monthly rental of Rs. 25.
3. The respondent No. 3 filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 134 of 1984.
4. The said release application of respondent No. 3 (landlord) wad dismissed in default on 19.10.1984 by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Mainpuri (respondent No. 1).
5. It further appears that the respondent No. 3 moved an application for restoration of the said release application. The said restoration application was registered as Misc. Case No. 351 of 1984,
6. The said restoration application (Misc. Case No. 351 of 1984) was allowed on 19.12.1984.
7. It appears that subsequently the petitioner moved an application No. 4 GA for setting aside the order dated 19.12.1984 passed on the restoration application (Misc. Case No. 351 of 1984). The said application 4 GA filed by the petitioner was registered as Misc. Case No. 260 of 1985. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Mainpuri, by order dated 17.2.1988 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Against the said order dated 17.2.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Mainpuri, the petitioner filed an appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 1988.
8. The learned District Judge. Mainpuri by order dated 6th April, 1988 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) dismissed the said Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 1988 as not maintainable.
9. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 22 (b) of the rules framed under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, praying for recalling the said order dated 6.4.1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri. The said application of the petitioner which was registered as Misc. Case No. 135 of 1988, was rejected by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri, by order dated 12.8.1988 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).
10. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present writ petition on 8.12.1988, which was directed to be listed for admission after a week. No interim order was granted to the petitioner on the stay application accompanying the writ petition.
11. I have heard Sri B. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. It is evident from the facts narrated above that a release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was dismissed in default, and the same was restored by order dated 19.12.1994. The petitioner thereafter filed an application No. 4 GA (Misc. Case No. 260 of 1985) praying for setting aside the said order dated 19.12.1984 and hearing the matter again. This application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Mainpuri, by order dated 17.2.1988. A perusal of the said order dated 17.2.1988, shows that cogent reasons have been given by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif. Mainpuri, for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. No interference is called for with the findings recorded by Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Mainpuri, in the said order dated 17.2.1988.
12. So far as the appeal filed by the petitioner being Misc. Appeal No. 28 of 1988 is concerned, the learned District Judge, Mainpuri. rightly dismissed the same as not maintainable. The provisions regarding appeals are contained in Section 10 and Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
13. Section 10 of the said Act provides for appeal against the order of the District Magistrate under Section 8 or Section 9 or Section 9A of the said Act. The aforesaid order dated 17.2.1988 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri, rejecting the application No. 4 GA (Misc. Case No. 260 of 1985) filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 19.12.1984, whereby restoration application (Misc. Case No. 351 of 1984) filed by the respondent No. 3 had been allowed. Thus, the order dated 17.2.1988, was not an order under Section 8 or Section 9 or Section 9A of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. As such, no appeal against the said order dated 17.2.1988 could be filed under Section 10 of the said Act.
14. Again, Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides for appeal against the order under Section 21 or Section 24 of the said Act. The said order dated 17.2.1988, is neither an order under Section 21 of the said Act nor an order under Section 24 of the said Act. As such, no appeal under Section 22 of the said Act could be filed against the said order dated 17.2.1988.
15. Thus, no appeal lay against the said order dated 17.2.1988 under Section 22 or under Section 10 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The conclusion of the learned District Judge, Mainpuri, in this regard was correct.
16. So far as the provisions of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are concerned, the said provisions are not applicable to the proceedings under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. gives to the District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or appellate authority or the revising authority, powers of the civil court in the Code of Civil Procedure when trying the suit, in respect of the matters mentioned in the said provision. Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the said Act provides that the authorities mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the said Act will also have powers of civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, when trying the suit, in respect of any other matter which may be prescribed, i.e., prescribed by the rules. Rule 22 of the rules framed under the said Act enumerates such other matters in respect of which powers of the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been conferred on the aforesaid authorities mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Thus, only limited powers of civil court as are mentioned in Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and Rule 22 of the rules framed under the said Act have been given to the authorities under the said Act, namely the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
17. A perusal of Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and Rule 22 of the rules framed under the said Act shows that the provisions of the Order XLIII have not been made applicable to the proceedings under the U, P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In fact, Section 38 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in case of inconsistency with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.
18. Hence, It is evident that the appeal cannot be filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders passed by the authorities under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. As such, the appeal could not be filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the said order dated 17.2.1988. Even otherwise, considering the nature of the order dated 17.2.1988, the same was not covered under the appealable orders mentioned under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, the appeal of the petitioner against the said order dated 17.2.1988 was not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The conclusion of the learned District Judge, Mainpuri, in this regard was correct.
19. Coming to the provisions of revision under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the same are contained in Section 18 of the said Act. Under Section 18 of the said Act, revision lies against the final order under Section 16 or Section 19 of the said Act. The said order dated 17.2.1988 is neither an order under Section 16 of the said Act nor an order under Section 19 of the said Act, as such, no revision could be filed under Section 18 of the said Act against the said order dated 17.2.1988.
20. Further, a perusal of Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and Rule 22 of the rules framed under the said Act shows that the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable to the authorities mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Thus, no revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 17.2.1988.
21. Thus, no revision lay against the said order dated 17.2.1988. The conclusion of the learned District Judge, Mainpuri, in this regard was correct.
22. The learned District Judge, Mainpuri, therefore, rightly passed the order dated 6.4.1988, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as not maintainable.
23. Similarly, the application filed by the petitioner (Misc. Case No. 135 of 1988) for recalling the said order dated 6.4.1988, was rightly dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mainpuri, giving cogent reasons.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned orders in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, substantial justice has been done between the parties. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.