JUDGMENT J. C. Gupta, J.
1. Heard petitioner's counsel.
2. This is tenant petition against the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioner's application for deciding the question whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter. The application has been rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority on the ground that there is a prima facie material to Indicate such a relationship and further on the ground that no trust deed has been produced from the side of the tenant. The Prescribed Authority was also of the opinion that the petitioner's application was moved only with a view to delay the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that an application under Section 21 is maintainable only at the instance of the landlord and no other person and where the tenant raises a question before the Prescribed Authority that the person who has moved release application is not his landlord, he is duty bound to decide the said question and in support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Nath Mishra V. Prescribed Authority, 1984 (2) ARC 227. There can be no dispute with regard to this position of law. However, the question that requires consideration is as to whether the Prescribed Authority is also duty bound to decide the said question as a preliminary issue?
4. From the scheme of the Act, it is clear that the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority are of a summary nature and are to be decided on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties. Section 34 lays down a special procedure to be followed by the Prescribed Authority while holding an enquiry under the Act. This section is a complete Code so far as the powers of, and procedure to be followed by, the authorities under the Act arc concerned. Whole of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The authorities have been conferred with the same powers as are vested in civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of only those matters as are specified under Section 34 (1) of the Act and in Rule 22. There is nothing In Section 34 or Rule 22 which may indicate that when the right of the person applying under Section 21 (1) (a) is challenged by the tenant, the Prescribed Authority is duty bound to decide the said question as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter. The said question has also to be decided like other issues involved in the case on the basis of the evidence and other material brought on record by respective parties. It is also well-established that where the maintainability of a suit or a petition or an application is challenged on the ground that the authority concerned lacks jurisdiction inherently to proceed in the matter, it is only the facts pleaded in the plaint or in the petition or in the application which are to be looked into for determining the question of lack of jurisdiction. From the allegations made in the release application in this writ petition, it cannot be said that those allegations even if taken at their face value do not confer jurisdiction on the Prescribed Authority to proceed in the matter. Where the objection about the maintainability of the application is to be decided on the basis of the allegations made in the written statement or in the reply given by the defendant/opposite party, the said question should be decided only on the basis of evidence and material brought on record.
5. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is disposed of and the Prescribed Authority is directed to finalize the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months according to law.