The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a tenant cannot file a statutory appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against an order rejecting an application seeking recall of an ex parte release order. The Court held that such recall orders are procedural in nature and do not fall within the category of appealable orders under the Act.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava delivered the judgment while dismissing a petition challenging orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority in a landlord-tenant dispute arising from Agra.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned Shop No. 4 situated at Kachahri Road, Baluganj, Agra. The premises had been rented to the late Mohammad Shamim. The landlord, Smt. Harpal Kaur, filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Rent Act, claiming that the shop was genuinely required for establishing a clinic for her medically qualified son.
During the proceedings, the original tenant passed away, after which his legal representatives, including Smt. Bashiran and another, were substituted in the case. The Prescribed Authority later allowed the landlord's release application on 22 December 2023 after recording findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship.
Instead of challenging that release order through a statutory appeal, the legal representatives filed an application seeking recall of the order, alleging that they had not been properly served with notices after substitution. The recall application was rejected, and their subsequent appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Court's Observation
The High Court examined the statutory framework governing appeals and procedural powers under the Act.
The Court noted that Section 22 provides a right of appeal only against orders passed under Sections 21 and 24 of the Act. A recall application, however, is considered under the procedural powers contained in Section 34 read with the Rules.
Rejecting the tenants' argument that the recall proceedings formed part of the original release proceedings, the Court observed:
"The source of the power exercised by the authority, and not merely the subject-matter of the proceedings, furnishes the true test for determining the character of the order."
The Court further stated that accepting the petitioners' interpretation would unnecessarily expand the scope of Section 22 and make several procedural orders appealable, contrary to the legislative scheme.
Findings on the Recall Application
The High Court also considered whether the petitioners had established sufficient grounds for recalling the ex parte release order.
After examining the record, the Court found that notices had been issued to the substituted legal representatives and that the Prescribed Authority had even granted them an additional opportunity to participate in the proceedings despite recording sufficient service. However, they neither filed a written statement nor produced evidence before the authority.
The Court observed:
"The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights."
It held that the petitioners failed to establish either lack of service or any sufficient cause preventing them from appearing before the Prescribed Authority.
Court's Decision
Dismissing the petition, the High Court upheld both the Prescribed Authority's order rejecting the recall application and the Appellate Authority's decision holding that the appeal itself was not maintainable.
The Court concluded that no jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity had been shown warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Bashiran and Another v. Smt. Harpal Kaur
Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 3192 of 2026
Judge: Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Decision Date: 7 July 2026
