Uttarakhand High Court Mahesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners vs Pradeep Kumar & Ors on 26 April, 2019 Writ Petition No. 219 of 2019 (M/S) Mahesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners versus Pradeep Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. T.S. Bindra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the respondents List of cases referred: 1. (2018) 2 SCC 87 2. (2018) 11 SCC 208 3. 2003 8 SCC 289 4. (2007) 11 SCC 37 Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.7.2018 passed by Ist Addl. District Judge, Dehradun on application paper no.10A and 13A of petitioners in rent control appeal no.9 of 2018 Smt. Kalawati and others v. Pradeep Kumar and another (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulating of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the court of Prescribed Authority/First Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun, seeking release of the demised property. Release application was registered as P.A. case no.8/2008. Petitioners/tenants contested the release application and filed written statement. On completion of evidence 2 of the parties, the case was fixed for arguments on 15.06.2018. On 15.06.2018, case was called out but as none was present for the petitioners/tenants for arguments till 11:30 AM, learned Prescribed Authority fixed the case for judgment on 26.06.2018, giving opportunity to the petitioners/tenants to argue the matter in the meanwhile or to file written arguments. On the same date, counsel for the petitioners/tenants appeared before the court and argued the case. After hearing the arguments, judgment was reserved. Learned Prescribed Authority, vide judgment and order dated 26.6.2018, allowed the release application of the respondent/landlord, directing the petitioners/tenants to vacate the premises in question within 30 days from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners/tenants preferred a Rent Control Appeal No.9/18. Landlord appeared in caveat before the appellate court. Learned District Judge, Dehradun admitted the appeal, summoned the lower court record and fixed the case for hearing on 27.07.2018. Interim order was also granted to the petitioners/tenants with a rider that if any adjournment application is moved by the petitioners/tenants on the date of hearing then the interim order will automatically got vacated. Thereafter, case was transferred to Ist Addl. District Judge, Dehradun. On 27.07.2018, petitioners/tenants moved an application before the appellate court being paper no.10A stating therein that the written arguments were submitted by Mr. D.N. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants in the Court personally to the Presiding Officer but as the same were not made part of the record, matter be reported to District Judge, Dehradun for passing appropriate 3 orders under General Rule Civil, for permitting to reconstruct the aforesaid written arguments. Application was filed along with an affidavit by Mr. Mahesh Kumar. Petitioners/tenants also moved application paper no.13A , thereby praying that the judgment and order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority be set aside and the case be remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for re hearing and deciding the case afresh. Learned Additional District Judge, Dehradun, vide order dated 27.7.2018, rejected both the applications moved by the petitioners/tenants. While rejecting application paper no.10A, the appellate court observed that there is no requirement of reconstructing the written arguments as complete arguments were advanced by the counsel for the petitioners/tenants before the Prescribed Authority. It was further observed that if the written submissions filed by the petitioners/tenants were not accepted on record then it cannot be a ground to adjourn the hearing of appeal. On application paper no.13A, the appellate court observed that the counsel for the petitioners/tenants are not willing to argue the appeal and rejected the application being misconceived. 3. A perusal of the record would show that during the pendency of release application, an application was moved by the petitio