RAM PAL SINGH Vs. RAM DATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.08.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex -parte order dated 18.07.2000 was dismissed by the Court below. As desired by the learned counsel for the parties, this petition was heard and is being disposed of at this stage finally. It appears that the contesting respondent filed an application for release of the building in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner who happened to be the tenant in the building in question. Parties, in support of their cases, produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Prescribed Authority, after perusing the material on the record, allowed the release application by its judgment and order dated 15.05.1999. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, and appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Court below under Section 22 of the Act. It was on 18.07.2000 that the said appeal was dismissed for default. On that very day, an application was filed for recalling the order dated 18.07.2000 through another counsel as the counsel who has filed the appeal was not available. It is stated that the said application was not pressed under the facts and circumstances stated in the writ petition. The same was, therefore, dismissed as not pressed on 21.08.2000. On the same date, another application was filed for recalling the ex -parte order which was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order dated 21.08.2000. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in not allowing the restoration application filed by the petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has been urged that the application was liable to be allowed. The Court below has taken a technical view in the matter, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I also consider it necessary to set aside the impugned orders and allow this petition with the direction to the Court below to decide the appeal on merits.