By means of a Notification dated 9.9.1974 the Government had designated the Additional City Magistrate II, Kanpur, to be the Prescribed Authority under the Act for certain areas including the limits of Collector Ganj Police Station where the leased property is situate.
The Notification of the Government was duly published in the Gazette on 17.2.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.1977 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W. No.
265 of 1978.
N. Kacker and B.R. Agarwala for the Appellants.
While Shri Senger was serving as a Tehsildar the Government in exercise of its powers under Sections 12 and 39 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, issued a general Notifica tion dated 6.2.1968 companyferring on all Tehsildars the powers of a First Class Magistrate and on all Naib Tehsildars the powers of a Second Class Magistrate.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He worked as Additional City Magistrate II, Kanpur from 16.2.1974 to 14.8.1974 and again from May 1975 to 26.8.1975.
It may be mentioned here that the respondents were already having their residence in the second floor and their business establishments in anoth er portion of the ground floor.
It was during this period i.e. on 19.8.1975 he had passed the impugned order of release.
Mr. Prithvi Raj and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.
1974 and posted as Additional City Magis trate II, Kanpur.
R. Lalit, R.B. Mehrotra and D.N. Misra for the Respond ents.
Various defences were raised by the appellant to oppose the applica tion but all the objections were found untenable by the Prescribed Authority and he, therefore, passed an order of release on 19.8.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. The only question for companysideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 for short the Act hereinafter is a null and void order because the Prescribed Authority had numberjurisdiction to pass the order as he did number possess the requisite quali fication for being appointed as such Authority.
The High Court, therefore, dis missed the writ petition filed by the appellant and hence the present appeal by special leave.
The High Court thereafter went into the companyrectness of the findings companycur rently rendered by the Prescribed Authority and the Appel late Authority and found the findings to be fully in accord ance with law and facts.
144 1 of 1976.
