RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that the landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the original tenant Bhagwat Saran. During the pendency of the application Bhagwat Saran died on 22 -12 -1989. Thereafter petitioner No. 1, grandson of Bhagwat Saran, and petitioner No. 2, daughter -in -law of Bhagwat Saran, were substituted as tenants. Time was granted to the petitioners for filing written statement. It appears that the petitioners engaged a counsel, who was quite old. He took some adjournments, therefore, the petitioners charged the lawyer and engaged another counsel. The second lawyer contested the election of the assembly and, therefore, also written statement could not be filed. Ultimately, an adjournment application dated 5 -7 -1991 was filed on 8 -7 -1991 requesting one month time for filing written statement. It has also come on record that the second lawyer, engaged by the petitioners, had also gone out of station in connection with the ailment of his wife, therefore, also the petitioners could not get the written statement prepared by some body else for want of papers, which were with the second lawyer. However, the court below rejected the application dated 8 -7 -1991 and fixed 25 -7 -1991 for proceeding ex -parte. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of opinion that the lawyers were also responsible for not getting the written statement prepared for one reason or the other. This certainly does not mean that the petitioners were absolved of the responsibility of filing written statement. However, without interfering with the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should approach the Prescribed Authority for recalling its order dated 8 -7 -1991. The impugned order dated 8 -7 -1991, no doubt, is very hard on the petitioners. In these hard days when accommodation problem is very acute it shall not be fair to proceed in the matter ex -parte against the tenant in a proceeding under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act. A client cannot be allowed to suffer for the laches on the part of the counsel engaged by him. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to make an application before the Prescribed Authority for recalling the impugned order dated 8 -7 -1991 alongwith an affidavit in which they shall clearly state the facts in detail. In case, such an application alongwith an affidavit is made, the Prescribed Authority shall afford full opportunity to the petitioners landlord also and hear the matter. It is hoped that the Prescribed Authority shall afford opportunity to the petitioners to contest the matter without allowing any adjournment whatsoever in future unless extreme ground is made out. I have passed the above order only to avoid delay otherwise normally after hearing the learned counsel for the parties it would be open to the court to set aside the order. But, in case, it is admitted and stay is granted then that would certainly be against the interest of justice and the matter would be kept pending in this Court for several years. In case, the aforesaid application with affidavit is filed by the petitioners within three weeks from today the Prescribed Authority shall dispose of the same expeditiously, taking into consideration the observations made above, on merits and in accordance with law, before proceeding further in the proceedings pending before him under Section 81 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. A certified copy of this order shall be filed alongwith the aforesaid application and affidavit. In the event of default, this order shall not be given effect to.

(2.) WITH the above observations, this petition is dismissed.