DHIRENDRA SINGH Vs. KASHI NATH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 24-10-1998, whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 2-5-1998 was rejected, and the order of the appellate authority dated 29-2-2000, confirming the said order.

(2.) THE landlord-Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, with the allegations that he required the disputed shop for his son, Sachin Gupta. THE notice was issued to the petitioner. Report came that he had refused that. It was taken as sufficient service and the prescribed authority allowed the applica tion on 2-5-1998 against the petitioner. THE petitioner filed an application on 7-8-1998 to recall the said order on the ground that he had not received the notice alleged to have been sent to him. THE prescribed authority rejected this applica tion on 24-10-1998. THE petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed on 29-2-2000.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, 1 find that the petitioner had denied his signature on the notice. None of the par ties had produced the expert evidence. The process server had earlier reported that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice and there was no explanation as to why the petitioner would accept the notice when it was given the next time. The per son who had refused the notice earlier, if his intention was to avoid it, would not accept the same on the second time as well.