CHANDAN SINGH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings which took place under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail because the controversy is a very short one. The landlords, namely, the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, filed an application under Section 21 of the Act, seeking the release of the accommodation in dispute. The application was filed against the petitioner who is the tenant. THIS application was allowed ex-parte and thereafter, an application was given to set aside the ex-parte order. It seems that the application was headed as one under Section 32 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 24-1-1981. a certified copy of which is on the record. The application was rejected merely on the ground that there is no provision under Section 32 of the said Act for setting aside the ex-parte order. Thereafter, an application was given praying that the said order should be recalled as due to inadvertace Section 32 was mentioned in the application, what was really meant was Rule 32 of the rules framed under the said Act. THIS application was also rejected by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31-1-1981 and a true copy of which is Annexure 6 to the petition. The application was held not maintainable on the ground that the earlier order had been based on merits.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved the petitioner has now come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri H. S. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and in opposition, Sri Sudhir Agarwal, has made his submissions.