MADAN LAL Vs. PARWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, by order dated 3rd January, 1992 petitioner was directed to serve respondent no. 1 personally as well as by registered notice through office. Petitioner has filed an affidavit of service which shows that the notice was tendered for acceptance on 13th January, 1992 but she refused to accept the notice. The notice was also sent by registered post by office. The notice was sent on 19th January, 1992 fixing 13th July, 1992. The notice of acknowledgement has not been received back unserved. IN the facts and circumstances service is deed sufficient on the respondent no. 1.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed challenging order dated 27th November, 1991 passed by learned I Additional district Judge. Aligarh in Appeal No. 4 of 1991 by which application of petitioner, for allotment of the accommodation in dispute after reconstruction, has been dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 7th July, 1990 petitioner had already served a notice on respondent no 1 to hand over possession and to intimate the date within a week for handing over possession of the shop. This application was referred to in the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It was also mentioned in Paragraph no. 12 of the affidavit filed by petitioner in support of his application for allotment The application for allotment was filed immediately thereafter on 20th July 1990. The appellate authority without taking into consideration this notice has illegally held that the application of petitioner was time barred.