BALAK RAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-opposite-party No. 2 had filed an application under Section 21(b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) for seeking eviction of the present Petitioner from the accommodation in question and for its release in his favour. Notice was ordered to be issued to the present Petitioner-tenant. It seems that personal service of the notice could not be effected on him, hence it was ordered that the notice be served by publication in newspaper. Consequently, a publication of the notice was made in a local weekly paper called "Vichar Bharati". As the present Petitioner did not appear before the Prescribed Authority on the date mentioned in the notice published in the newspaper the Prescribed Authority passed an ex-parte order on 1-8-1978. The landlord then put that order in execution and when the police reached the spot to execute the order the present Petitioner came to know of the order for the first time. He then moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. The Prescribed Authority allowed that application and set aside the ex-parte order dated 1-8-1978 vide his order dated 14-2-1979. The landlord then filed an appeal against the said order of the Prescribed Authority in the court of the District Judge, Gonda. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 14-2-1979. The tenant-Petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order of the learned District Judge.

(2.) For the Petitioner it was urged at the outset that as no appeal lies under Section 22 of the Act against the order allowing an application setting aside the ex-parte order the appeal filed by the landlord-opposite party was incompetent, It was also argued that even on merits the order of the learned District Judge is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as it suffers form a manifest error of law.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as also the learned Counsel for the opposite-party landlord. In my view there is force in both the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner.