ABDUL RAUF Vs. MUST. JUBAIDA KHATOON AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Islam for the contesting respondent. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 12.7.2005 and 18.1.2010 by which the release application of the respondent landlord has been allowed.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of the disputed premises of which the contesting respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed an application for release under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the premises for personal need. The application was allowed ex parte vide order and judgment dated 12.7.2005 by the Prescribed Authority directing release of the premises. Instead of preferring an appeal, the petitioner tenant made an application for recalling the order on the ground that though he was attending the case regularly but since 21.6.2008 he was down with jaundice and when he recovered on 16.7.2005 he came to know about the ex parte decree whereafter the petitioner preferred recall of ex parte release and on its rejection he filed an appeal against the release order and the aforesaid order but the same has been rejected vide order dated 18.1.2010 holding that there was no provision of filing an appeal against an order rejecting the recall application.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had given cogent reason for his absence before the Prescribed Authority and has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramji Dass and others v. Mohan Singh,1978 ARC 496 to contend that authority should try to dispose of the matter on merits rather than on technicalities.